Warren will win the Presidency. Trump is done today after a guy who contributed a million bucks (quid pro quo par excellence) to get a plum ambassadorship in Europe destroyed his fables, n those of his enablers.
He will be impeached ASAP by the House and will be tried in the Senate. If Senators from the GOP don't join the Democrats in finding him guilty, the nation will go after them when we get a decent Attorney General and Justice Department. Abetting a crime and a criminal is a crime and no matter how archaic the laws and constitution of this country are, they still concede this point to fairness and justice of the 21st century civilization.
Pence may be running against Warren and will be eaten alive. If Trump survives the Senate vote led by Justice Roberts, this nation needs to take its soul to the nearest laundromat. In any case he would lose badly to Warren if we assume half of the electorate (the idiotic electoral college I have to assume) are not criminal abettors, we will have the best new president since FDR. I would say exactly the same if I substituted Sanders for Warren anywhere above. The rest of the Democrats, I don't even consider them as anything but Republican light.
16
The danger of Elizabeth Warren is that of putting an extremist in power who advocates a jumble of leftist policies that have spoiled the economies of other countries by making them uncompetitive and inefficient, and society dependent on government handouts and a bloated bureaucracy. Bold new ideas? Who is she kidding? More like washed up socialism. Best thing that could happen if she got nominated, is that Donald Trump could win, and that’s no consolation prize!
11
Here’s the problem with the faction formerly known as the Democratic Party: independent voters are sick and tired of the so-called ‘progressive’ sanctimony being rammed down our throats, ad nauseam. People don’t vote on policies alone, but also on a visceral level. The smug, self-righteous, holier than thou totalitarian Left will lose the election on that score alone.
18
That was an awfully long way of saying you don't think that healthcare is a human right.
16
Oh my goodness, Tommy Edsall lays it on thick. Rather than a simple article with one or two core arguments, e.g. why Warren could jeopardize winning Congress, he wrote this very difficult to read article where he does quote after quote after quote. As if to beat you over the head with how dangerous and "extreme" Warren is and how stupid anyone would be to support her. And as if to bury the reader in too many arguments and quotes against Warren to ever rebut. You have me convinced... I am an idiot for ever considering voting for Warren. I am so sorry. Just kidding. I still support Warren.
Basically the argument is that progressive candidates are unelectable, so we should instead nominate moderate (i.e. fiscal conservative) candidates. Because the election needs to be a referendum on Trump. In truth I view the election as a referendum on centrists Democrats, who I want thrown out of power for weakening the middle class and bringing about no change or solutions to our problems. Then the argument is that if we dare ever raise taxes on the wealthy, that will hurt the economy for us. So let's agree to keep things as they are, so that we at least defeat Trump and have jobs... for stagnant pay as the rich continue to get richer.
Um, no.
I genuinely want higher taxes on the wealthy, universal health care, more regulation, and other progressive policies. That's not extreme. Nominating a centrist does little to help me in my life, and will likely lose to Trump.
14
I would venture to say that most Americans citizens....excluding ‘woke’ millennials, of course...would rather risk another four more years of Donald Trump then risk another 10-20 million impoverished foreign nationals jumping our borders because doing so would carry no penalty (not to mention the free welfare benefits would be just marvelous)...
13
I'm shocked - or maybe I shouldn't be. What is the NYT doing by trashing Elizabeth Warren at this point in the game? Come on! Is the NYT really going to be afraid of the big corporations and banks and the 1%? I am actually super cranky about this opinion piece by Mr. Edsall, especially since Obama (whom I normally think walks on water) just advocated the middle of the road stance for the Democrats. Middle of the road didn’t work in 2016 and Trump snagged it by not being just that. Look at the ground swell that Bernie had in 2016 and he is no middle of the road guy! I am still ticked off, by the way, at Bernie because he did not immediately embrace Hillary when he lost the nomination. He didn’t have to “love” her or even like her, but he did, in my opinion, have a duty to encourage his supporters to transfer their enthusiasm to be fully behind her because of the threat of Trump. But I digress. Warren is smart, capable, and knows how to get stuff done. And we who are Democrats committed to voting Trump out from office in 2020 need to join together and stop nit-picking our pool of candidates. Whoever gets the Democratic nomination, whether it is Warren or someone else, needs to be fully and totally supported. Important newspapers writing polarizing Op Ed pieces like this now, ahead of the game, will not do any of them any good.
10
Absurd. Saying that Warren is radical in the age of Trump is silly. Trump is the most radical candidate since Andrew Jackson. So if radicalism isn't the way to get elected...then why is Trump president? Oh, it is just left wing radicalism. Why don't we just let the Democrats decide who to nominate. I think that Trump did pretty well last year despite everyone saying that he had no chance. I guess the Republican voters knew better than the "experts" at the NYT. Your polls had Hillary winning as a near certainty. Just stay out of it and let the people decide.
10
Gosh....now it's bad to even win the presidency. Moderate Obama could not get his programs through a Liberal House and Senate. And yes...moderate, saintly, 'closest thing to Jesus Christ' Obama lost both houses.
Come on.....! So tired of this weak-kneed nonsense....Especially in light of the extremes of Republican positions.
Here's another thought....maybe its best to fight on the extremes and lose. The world is not ending, with Trump in the White House.
4
Plutocracy speaks up.
4
The extremist is in the White House. Most of what Warren is advocating is the societal consensus in all modern western democracies and has been for decades. The US has let the Republicans shift the political spectrum so far to the right that we have a white supremacist in the White House and a pragmatic social democrat like Warren is demeaned as some sort of raving Bolshevik..
11
You know, there are not many moderate voices on this board but Warren’s numbers are going down and Biden’s are going up. We
“...centrists...” may not say much, but we stay the course- and we vote.
7
WAKE UP ALL YOU SMUG CORPORATE "MODERATES"
this election will be decided by how many millennials come out to vote.
they won't show for another boring yellow line down the middle of the road corporate democrat.
and if the next prez accomplishes nothing for the general populace, as been the case essentially since vietnam, the victor in 2024 will be far worse than trump, a non-buffoon with a clear and do-able fascist agenda.
think President Paul Ryan.
5
i voted for Obama twice and HRC in 2016. in 2020 i will not be voting for either warren or sanders.
15
“Far too often, Democratic campaigns are designed to win over mushy milquetoast (and mythical) moderates, rather than excite the base.” So say the Justice Democrats. Well, I've always felt that I was a mushy milquetoast and part of the mythical moderates. We are proud cowards. When we meet for political discussions we refer to ourselves as the MMMM. Because we are not part of the base we tend not to be "excited" and often forget to vote.
2
The backlash against Warren is a disgrace. The election is 11 1/2 months away. Warren, at the very least, should get a chance to campaign. She is extremely intelligent and hard-working and has accomplished a lot of good. In addition, she seems healthy, vibrant and fit. She stands for something. Let's not take all the passion out of the party. Here are two words of wisdom from a well-known space-traveler:
Don't panic.
13
How about we elect somebody who has a real radical idea. Like destroy all of coastal United States in the next 50 to 100 years through lack of action on climate change. Let see a centrist like Biden could probably succeed in this. He has my vote
5
Please Democrats if we are going to win and defeat Trump and the GOP no more big doner corporate DNC choices....listen to the people this time. The Corporate DNC is way out of touch with the wishes and needs of the people. Please!
4
Elizabeth Warren is right! However, it is up to the citizens of this country to rise and stand for the type of change that will be necessary to turn the wheels of history. It is time that we stop subsidizing billionaires and millionaires through tax breaks, incentives and policy objectives that raise their profit margins and allow entities to hid money in tax havens and shell companies. How many innocents will die in wars started by those that see money and power as the goal? Our elected leaders get Cadillac healthcare, and for life, while the hapless millions toiling their lives away make choices between food and medical care. How many times have the tax payers bailed out corporations, banks, Billionaires and Millionaires while telling us that Medicare for All is unaffordable? As for Warren standing up to Trump on the debate stage, let me have a go at him, I'll shred his hypocrisy!
6
Dear god, I am as liberal as they come and Warren scares the heck out of me.
The country has many problems for sure, but no problem is as urgent and high-priority as facing the prospect of four more years of Trump depravity. I don't want even a single conservative to despise and loathe my democratic presidential candidate like I despise and loathe Trump. That just can't be a good thing, and Warren seems determined to be that one democratic candidate. I do hope she fails before she pulls the whole house down along with her.
12
Here's the thing: American healthcare is the most expensive and least effective in the world. Tens of thousands of Americans die each year because they are unlucky enough to live here; their perfectly treatable conditions would be handled in every other civilized nation save this one, where they die instead of get treatment. Only we lack national health care. Only Americans suffer "Medical Bankruptcy."
The cowards at the Times claim it is extreme to offer Americans hope we can just catch up to the rest of the world. Not be the best, not set the standard, no be an example, just be no worse than average.
Shame on you all. We deserve better. America deserves better.
American kids are going to die until we wake up and realize we are being treated like chumps and demand that we can have what all the rest of the civilized world offers: cheap reasonable health care.
4
The Danger of a Woman in a Position of Power
Isn’t that really what this is all about?
For all if you who say she “can’t” win, remember women have been told for millennia that they “can’t” do almost everything (except perhaps give birth, which ironically some would then force them to do so that the woman does not retain power even in that).
Warren will be a powerful president because she is intelligent, learned, willing to learn, and because she truly believes in fairness and the dignity of every person.
Sisters, stand together and prove once and for all that a woman CAN do anything!
Vote Warren!
10
White men sure seem to be petrified of Ms. Warren or is it just any female presidential candidate who is given a good chance of winning?
While Hillary Clinton’s campaign was plagued by her own innate ability to appear untruthful, along with a kitchen sink full of Russian interference, hacked emails and James Comey’s inept meddling, I’m discovering with all the continuing male attacks on Ms. Warren, that plain old misogynistic antipathy seems to be as much a factor in this election as Mrs. Clinton claimed was alive and well in 2016.
As much as these very men denounce the obscenity that is donald trump, it appears attacking Ms. Warren is their real mission for the 2020 election. And thats from men who are Democrats and Independents.
Elizabeth Warren and Stacey Abrams in 2020, if we are serious about cleaning this putrid swamp.
10
Warren seems like a cross between Dukakis and McGovern.
6
You think we’re going to be fired up to vote for Joe Biden? How well did centrists like Kerry and HRC work out?
7
"'The Warren program dwarfs the errors, economic and political, of George McGovern, writes former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.'" Odd coming from a man with his own extensive list economic, political, and personal errors, well documented by respected journalist Michael Hirsh in his September 13, 2013 Atlantic article, "The Comprehensive Case Against Larry Summers," when Summers was being considered - and was rejected - for the position of Federal Reserve Board Chairman. Worth a read as he assumes role of Warren critic going forward.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/the-comprehensive-case-against-larry-summers/279651/
4
Gee. Have you run a headline like this for any male candidates?
8
Because of Democratic Party “booga booga Commies!,” we’re going to end up with either a well-spoken child or a teetering, forgetful Grandpa running against Trump in November, and guess who wins in that case?
Prepare for a long night of endless investigations into everything the Democrats have supposedly done to fail in their loyalty to Fearless Leader after January 2021.
Trump may invite his good friend Kim Jung Un in to run the firing squad.
Good job, DINOS! You’ve helped protect the oligarchs, yet again!
We’ll be off in video game alternate reality, if any of you want to find us again to help root for which faction of the rich get to make false promises next time.
2
Why do I come to the NYTimes if, when I get here, all I hear are opinions on Warren that echo those at Fox News?
8
The fact that Warren scares so many old white men makes me even more convinced she would be a great president.
9
A WOMAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE!! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE.
Oh, c'mon.
8
Once again, a journalist for the New York Times, CNN or the Washington Post is not going to tell me who not to vote for.
5
Larry Summers? Really Tom? And the progressive wing of the party isn't pulling the electorate to the left rather we, the electorate that have been reamed for the last 40 years by the economic platforms of both parties, are already on the left which is why all politicians like Warren are following. And why do you doubt the electability of sane and reasonable people like Sanders and Warren, whose policies will benefit the vast majority of Americans, given the current duly elected occupant of the White House?
4
I agree in general - but the more extremist candidate won in 2016!
I wonder if those two Stanford political scientists also took into account the fact that usually the tallest of the two presidential candidates gets elected.
This, to me, is much more solid evidence than “the link between the ideology of congressional candidates and the turnout of their parties’ bases in US House races, 2006—2014.”
And now let me watch the debate.
1
I wonder if those two Stanford political scientists also took into account the fact that usually the tallest of the two presidential candidates gets elected.
This, to me, is much more solid evidence than “the link between the ideology of congressional candidates and the turnout of their parties’ bases in US House races, 2006—2014.”
And now let me watch the debate.
Warren is smart, animated, full of pep and vigor, but she's like a snowball going down hill. Some if her ideas do not and will not appeal to the majority of Democrats.
2
Moderation usually comes with age.
Evidently for her, . . . not so much.
And immoderation will be a requirement for any candidate facing down Trump.
The kids behind her may surprise a lot of us.
OK boomers.
6
@Prof
There are millions of us Boomers left. And we vote. And here in PA, we are for Biden and he will win here big time.
4
the left is incapable to tune out the suffering of others, they should realize to help others cost a lot of money ,resources and wisdom, and they should be very careful how to pace the progress ,how much the country can afford.
however, the courage and the value should be endorsed.
the right on the other hand is incapable of not being the most powerful, rich and number one on the block , and will fight by ANY means to achieve that, along came countless disasters and despair .
1
Warren's ultra-progressive approach is reckless and needlessly risks another four years of Trump. As smart and hardworking as she appears to be in some capacities, her campaign strategy shows extremely poor judgement. We need a president who can unify, Warren is a divisive choice. The wrong choice for the Democrats and for the country.
6
I'm not a Warren backer, and hold many of the reservations that surface in this piece. But I have to say that I'm disturbed that Thomas Edsall chose to address this issue (which applies to both Sanders and Warren) with the sole focus on Sen. Warren. Low blow, Thomas...and "very unfair!"
8
This article just proves what many already know: Moderate--thinking voters win elections. Warren will scare them off. particularly after them being scared frpm 4 years of Trump--and, the upcoming impeachment wars. If the Dems want to win back the Presidency, it's go moderate or go home. Which means no Medicare for All, no rich benefits for undocumented immigrants, and tax increases only on the most wealthy.
7
@dajoebabe "This article just proves what many already know: Moderate--thinking voters win elections. "
Huh? Were you in this country during 2016?
3
I certainly hope that Elizabeth Warren becomes the Democratic party nominee for President--her policies are way too leftist and she would surely lose the election.
4
Of the candidates Ms Warren and Mr Sanders are the only ones who have stated their objectives in essentially uncertain terms. Why there is any outcry from anyone with regard to Medicare for all in this supposedly enlightened nation is a puzzle to me. We are the wealthiest nation with the worst medical care
The fact is, regardless the levy of new taxes to pay for it, medical costs will go down
The truly great financial disparity among the so called haves and have nots in our nation, epitomized by those who sleep on the streets, live in their cars or find refuge in abandoned houses, has no reason beyond greed to exist
If there is a "backlash leading to the re-election of Donald Trump" it will not be the result of her "progressive" proposals rather the barrage of male centric editorials such as this one
The old boys club is just that, a club of old boys who won't give up their clubhouse to some girl with stars in her eyes and sense in her words
We got 'hope", but little change from Mr Obama and rather than making America great Mr Trump has all but destroyed our nation
It is time we men got off our high horse and welcomed women into positions of power as there is no better or more needed time than now to stop the naysaying
Men consistently destroy whatever part of the world they rule as governance is a concept few of them bother to employ
"The main obstacle to Democratic victory in 2020" is not the women seeking office, rather the men who are standing in their way.
14
I was surprised and very disappointed with this column, and fully share Robert Kuttner's comment on TAP (The American Proscpect):
"As Edsall has to know, Summers more than anyone else promoted the financial deregulation that led to the 2008 financial collapse. And Elizabeth Warren, as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the bank bailout, spent three years raking Summers over the coals for his policy of putting bankers first and homeowners last.
Then she topped even that public service, as a brand-new senator, by organizing other Senate Democrats to warn President Obama not to appoint Summers chair of the Federal Reserve. And she succeeded, so the post went instead to the estimable Janet Yellen. Animus doesn’t begin to describe Summers when it comes to Warren.
Elizabeth Warren has made a few missteps, but she remains a formidable candidate. That’s what has Wall Street and its apologists so frightened. One expects better from Tom Edsall."
12
The comments here relentlessly focus on the Presidential race, pretty much ignoring the headline which is the more ideological the front runner is, the harder it is for those down ballot in the same party to prevail. Proving once again all politics is local. Except Kentucky. The removal of McConnell will do more to change the direction and efficacy of both houses of Congress, where more of our Constitutional power lies, than the President. This should not be ignored.
4
@Mark Yea, but Thomas Edsall said a lot of stuff about Elizabeth Warren and threw everything including the kitchen sink at us. If we are still rebutting whether Warren and progressive policies are extreme and whether the race should just be about removing Trump versus pursuing a more progressive vision, it might be a while until we get to discussing other things like winning congress and persuasion at the local level.
Really, this is just the reaction to a very bad op-ed that is intelligent but lays on the case against Warren a bit too thick. It would have been nice to just have an article about whether Warren had broad appeal or might win at the expense of losing the senate without a bunch of other criticisms of Warren.
2
This is is the same mistake senior figures of the democratic party make over and over again. Appeasement doesn't work, it never did. The Republican party has shown that it puts success above anything else, including patriotism. So why exactly should the Democrats move towards them?
12
Two points: First, I am so thoroughly tired of opinion pieces professing to know how this is all going to shake out. I get that you have to write them. But for goodness sake, can we all, please, for just one brief second, admit that we actually don't know whether a "safe" or "radical" approach will win in the next election? I really believe it'd be helpful for people, particularly those who profess to be experts, to admit this.
Second, if there is one thing I would hope we've all learned from the last election, it's that the salesperson matters a lot more than the plan they're selling (including whether the plan is realistically achievable). Given that, a medicare-for-all message (or whatever) might fly or flop, and we really won't be able to know that until one democratic candidate is chosen and starts selling it against Trump's plan (whatever that ends up being). Sentiments will then begin to change as the whole conversation centers around those two people and their proposed plans. Polls on the current feelings really can't capture that, because they only assess what people think they want now, in the abstract. In view of this, it seems like we need to stop overthinking it, and allow the process to pick the candidate who sells their plan most convincingly to the voters.
7
Edsall doesn't offer any criticisms of Warren's agenda or proposals. He simply asserts that she is "extreme" and that the corporate elite will successfully bankroll an election campaign to defeat her. And yet the only "extreme" thing about her proposals is that she has practical plans to implement things that most of us know are necessary like taxes on the super-wealthy, action on global warming, universal health care, etc.
These are exactly the kinds of criticisms of Elizabeth Warren (and Bernie Sanders) that will convince the electorate to elect one of them.
13
Even if Warren's prescriptions are "spot on," which most are, in my opinion, those prescriptions would be seen as too radical by roughly 50% of the population.
Read about the lead up to the Spanish civil war to contemplate the result of such radical change.
I hate to say it, but incremental change is politically a lot safer.
3
It's amazing how people like Thomas Edsall believe we need a middle of the road, institutionalist, establishmentarian nominee. That's precisely what we got with Hillary Clinton.
We live in an age of populism. Conventional political thinking from the 1990s no longer applies. Those who do not learn history (2016) are doomed to repeat it.
11
@Tone207
Agreed. No one, not even a moderate, is going to unite Congress and the country. It takes both parties to work together. If people get too anxious with political animosity, then that’s something they need to resolve within themselves.
1
Robert Kuttner exposes Edsall in an article today entitled, "Piling on Elizabeth Warren." I quote:
As Edsall has to know, Summers more than anyone else promoted the financial deregulation that led to the 2008 financial collapse. And Elizabeth Warren, as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the bank bailout, spent three years raking Summers over the coals for his policy of putting bankers first and homeowners last.
Then she topped even that public service, as a brand-new senator, by organizing other Senate Democrats to warn President Obama not to appoint Summers chair of the Federal Reserve. And she succeeded, so the post went instead to the estimable Janet Yellen. Animus doesn’t begin to describe Summers when it comes to Warren.
15
I'd vote for her against Trump but I fear many more moderates and independents wouldn't. There's a reason Trump fears Biden.
6
I'm a lifelong (moderate) Democratic voter. If Biden, Sanders and Warren are still in by the time the WI primary rolls around, I will not vote for any one of them. If one of them is the nominee of the party, I will look elsewhere in Nov., 2020.
8
@BRH Everyone's entitled to their choice, but if what you're saying is you'll vote for a third party candidate rather than choose between Trump and Biden/Sanders/Warren in Nov. 2020, make no mistake about it, you're saying "I'll take either." Reading between the lines, I suspect you don't really feel that way.
4
Trump is president.
"appeal to the median swing voter" does not, obviously, serve as a law of political science.
5
It's difficult to trust some of the media when they may be in the "high earning but not mega wealthy" zone, (and may experience higher taxes if certain candidates become president). Many of these writers live in expensive metropolitan areas. I would be very wary of the centrist "beating trump is most important" rhetoric----much of it may have to do with their own personal bottom line. I am not accusing anyone in particular, but I sometimes wonder if there is more to this Warren and Sanders bashing that meets the eye, from elite health care plans to wanting to protect that extra few thousand a year. After all, they believe that they are still supporting a Democrat, and not trump, so that's a good thing, right?
5
Barack Obama was a 'polarizing candidate' that did NOT "... diminish turnout in (his) own party while boosting turnout among opposing partisans." Bernie Sanders would do this too AND get great numbers of independent and non-affiliated votes!
There are about as many independents and non-affiliated voters as there are democrats and republicans combined. Edsall's 'polarizing candidate theory' might only apply to PR and not voting dynamics since it only involves the opposition between two small minorities within the pool of voters. This reality is never represented in mainstream media, who are more frequently getting blindsided by election results.
By the time the general election rolls along Elizabeth Warren would surely have backtracked on most of her progressive policies and garner nearly all centrist/establishment Democrats... at the expense of progressive Democrats and independents, non-affiliated, etc.. In other words, a major net loss. She renounced corporate/PAC money only after amassing tens of millions (and certainly didn't offer to return it). Now, after amassing a liberal constituency using a version of Bernie's Medicare for All she is renouncing it (and clearly hoping not to have to "give back" her progressive voters.) She seems to appreciate threshold and ratcheting processes and the importance of sequence in voter behavioral science - at the expense of the voter.
1
The alternative to Warren is another Obama, someone easily pushed around and eager to water down any and all workable ideas in order placate a non-existent group of Republican lawmakers willing to work with Dems on literally anything.
I'm a life-long conservative, and will happily vote for Warren or Sanders. Both are the only candidates from either party who have a track record of putting real people before corporations and the donor class. America desperately needs this.
12
@Michael-in-Vegas Neither one has been successful at getting legislation passed, so exactly how have they been putting people first?
2
Big structural change is needed. Except for a few the building is collapsing around us.
Trump got elected partly because of this even though he clearly is not the answer.
The question is: who and what is?
There is only one person who has really studied why we are collapsing and has identified the stresses and weak points. There is only one person who actually has a plan to fix them.
That is Elizabeth Warren. She will do it while helping the free market, government and a free people to contribute to that stability.
If not now, when?
7
this country was founded by revolutionaries with big ideas. FDR was the most recent great Democratic President. You don't send in a moderate to move the nation forward. The smartest person in the race for 2020 is a woman who connects with ordinary Americans because she wants to improve their lives.
16
Of great interest is the absence of any references to Pete Buttigieg, who, at least for the time being, has vaulted into a healthy lead in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Here, on the ground in New Hampshire, it’s not difficult to see why. His completely improbable resume sets him apart. While he can take of himself admirably, he doesn’t scare anyone. Some of his policies are quietly as radical as anything else among his rivals (his education plan, a call for national service etc). His ground game is absolutely superb. He’ll come under attack tonight during the debate, including a broadside from Kamala Harris about how he doesn’t understand African Americans. But, as they say, watch this space. (His recent Veterans Day speech in Rochester, NH, was extraordinary in that it was bereft of politics, apart from one vague allusion to the President. I would say he won over every Veteran in the room.)
2
@Gerald
Buttigieg is copying Yang. Yang is original.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u59yLdbHack
Yang has veterans supports:
Veterans made this for Yang:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJGODU77VJs
2
The Times's efforts to take down Sanders and now Warren too increasingly rely on Edsall's rolodex lists. Here is the central argument: "In other words, polarizing candidates diminish turnout in their own party while boosting turnout among opposing partisans." That is exactly the opposite of what happened in 2016. The Republicans dutifully voted their interests while Clinton's vote numbers collapsed.
9
A Democrat cannot win the presidency based on policy. Run a centrist and the woke crowd will stay home or vote third-party; run a bona fide liberal and swing-state moderates will stay home or vote GOP. This is entirely separate from Trump, but rather the tragic outcome of decades of right-wing propaganda via FOX and hate radio, and now such propaganda on steroids via social media.
Dems, forget policy! Find someone with movie-star looks, bearing, and charisma, and if we are lucky, smarts and experience, too. That is our only chance.
3
@Marty Now, that is sad for you to say that a Democrat cannot win based on policy. Why not? Could it be because their policies are not good policies? Yes, I can see why you would say the Democrats need a candidate with charisma. Cheer up, in a few years, AOC will be old enough to run and she's the new It Girl, isn't she?
1
Democrats and others attacking Sen. Warren are persistently claiming her "demand," that medicare for all be immediately implemented. Show me a public record where she claimed anything of the sort. And it makes no sense in the first place.
6
What we don't need is a candidate who believes that "nothing fundamental will change." What we know about the climate crisis and the ongoing collapse of the environment tells us that everything is going to change. Should we select a candidate who will offer reassuring platitudes or one who will tell the truth about the challenges before us?
9
Edsall, your run-of-the-mill, fear-stoking, reactionary.
There's nothing extremist about promoting a national healthcare system, that all developed nations in the world have already achieved some years ago.
There's nothing extremist about promoting income equality.
The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour and has not increased since July 2009. Really people!
16
This article and the bias towards it by "NYT Picks" responses to it have just made me donate more to Warren's campaign. The elite and status quo are obviously nervous. Power to the people!
28
Warren would be putty in Trump's hands. Everyone knows that. Except the Democrats. First time, shame on them. Second time, shame on us. We're witnessing a slow moving train wreck rapidly picking up speed and still have a little precious time to avoid its devastating aftermath without compromising our principles for the future of our democracy. What part of that proposition can't we or don't we understand?
Wake up, America before it's Good night, America.
208
@Guido Malsh
I disagree. I have no idea who I will vote for, but I have no problem with Warren because this election basically comes down to these 2 things:
1. Are we going to REGULATE giant corporations who make money from harming the populace as a whole? (see Climate Crisis, Opioid Crisis, Mass Shootings Crisis, etc), and
2. Are we going to tax Billionaires and expect they pay their share like the middle and lower class have been asked to do?
Trump is not for either of those things and that's why his presidency is a failure. Because the Constitution of the United States is about WE THE PEOPLE, not We the Corporations, nor We the Billionaires.
76
@Guido Malsh Not sure what you are referring to, but if it's the fact that Warren is a woman and Hillary was a woman then you are excluding many other factors for Hillary's defeat, including: Putin, Comey, Bill Clinton's Me-too problem, Hillary's emails, Hillary's centrist policies, and the DNC's unfair treatment of Bernie supporters.
Warren has far less baggage.
60
@Guido Malsh
Sorry but Warren can actually form coherent sentences and has integrity which is something that trump just doesn't understand what with all of his corrupt shadow governments so no I don't think your opinion is valid.
75
If she's bothering the wealthy and the corporations this much, Elizabeth Warren must be doing something right. She is proposing for Americans what people in many other countries take for granted. That is not radical, it is sensible. As much as I appreciate the overall professionalism of the NYT, it is still a major corporation run by a very wealthy family.
12
Once again a great column by Mr Edsall. However, in this case his conclusions are wrong.
Pollsters and academics are asking the wrong people the wrong questions.
They ask questions that they think have one meaning, but the people answering think they have another meaning.
Once it is explained to them that Warren's plans will move the US from the far right compared to other developed countries to around the middle they will favour the plans. What voters now think is liberal or progressive (or socialist or communist), because that is what Republicans have been saying for years, they will come to see is in fact very centrist internationally.
Warren does not have a radical set of plans.
What the US is currently living is a radically right wing politics.
It is past time to move the US back to the middle.
7
Why are people who defect to third party candidates or, more commonly, don’t vote at all considered the “base? To me, it’s the reliable voters who deliver their time, money and votes to the Democrats every election who constitute the Party’s base. And they don’t need dramatic policy proposals to excite them for 2020.
4
I share the concerns so well expressed by Mr. Edsall. Warren's string of proposals may each have merit to one or more constituencies, with a few definitely having a broad appeal to the Democrats and in fact to most Americans, like universal healthcare and access to education, addressing climate change and infrastructure makeover, all very costly enhancements of existing programs or new initiatives requiring vast amounts of new revenues. Some revenue can be obtained by reversing the 2017 tax legislation, but most will be through new business and individual taxes, the latter supposedly not affecting the middle and working classes. The burden for the rest will be put on the wealthy and corporate America, although the latter cannot be overtaxed to avert uncompetitiveness or shipping production overseas. Warren and Sanders answer for the shortfall is not only raising the income tax rate brackets but to apply a wealth tax. The former has precedent in the 1950's and later, the latter is a new taxation concept not attempted in the US before, but which failed in some European countries in the past. The basic question is one of constitutional legality, as such taxation falls under a direct tax that must be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. This is an issue that surely will be eventually decided by the Supreme Court, yet a worrisome concept in view of its conservative majority. The advise to Warren and Sanders is not to count the chickens before they hatch.
3
This doesn’t take into account the premiums, co pays, and deductibles we won’t be paying so that insurance executives can have another gold plated Ferrari.
3
I get Warren's appeal. I really do. The thing of it is, though, that at this point she's just a grab bag of whatever progressive talking point will make people clap, many of which are either thoroughly impractical or make absolutely no sense.
Ban hydraulic fracturing? A driver that produces tons upon tons of natural gas, which is the cleaner alternative we should be working away from dirtier fossil fuels toward while the extensive effort of updating the entire nation's power grid goes on? And also jobs? That's just dumb.
A very, very questionably legal tax on personal property at the Federal level?
Breakup of four immensely popular companies? (Seriously - cable monopolies are at least as much of a problem and nobody will shed a tear to see Comcast harmed)
Opening the border? Just...just open? You're going to sell that to a nation that is already substantially fearful of immigrants?
In a single term, you're going to get one or two of those things tops, and that's only if you've got a stranglehold on Congress, which she wouldn't have. Big ideas are great, but they're not workable plans. Plans include compromise, and there's none of that to be found here. I don't even disagree on a lot of issues (and am in some ways more liberal - I'd like to see a UBI implemented and the minimum wage scrapped entirely), but you have to be reasonable. Populations have a "change budget" - Warren blows past that by her second plank.
81
@Brian Seiler One man's "grab bag" is another man's guide to what President Warren's programs and policies would be and how these would be paid for. Read the plans Brian Seller. Then get back to us.
4
@Brian Seiler If you want UBI why not support Andrew Yang? Send a message to the Democrats who have already written him off. Now that's a big idea.
2
Developed nations with universal health care got there on the basis of a broad public consensus, the kind of which does not exist in the US. There is substantial opposition, even outside of that part of the population that has a vested interest in the current system (which, at a sixth of GDP, is already a significant bloc). Too many Americans don't like socialism for Warren or Sanders to be able to implement their agenda. If either is elected president they will be blocked in the Senate, the courts and the states. What is the norm in the rest of the world is not going happen in the US.
With ever-increasing costs, however, the status quo is not sustainable either. Absent health care reform the only alternative is - eventually - collapse.
2
As a person who has lived both in and outside the US, It stumps me how Warren is described as extreme for wanting to provide what other western countries have enjoyed for decades.
The US healthcare system's shift in focus from care to money has resulted in costs that are several times higher for exactly the same procedures. How is a system extreme for allowing the average taxpayer to pay only half as much for better care through taxes instead of insurance?
How is it extreme to suggest a system where the wealthiest forego their fifth Jaguar so that the life of low income children may be saved? How did it become the normal, non-extreme thing to do to look at luxury goods and think: "these 200.000$ could buy me another super cool car. Or they could save the life of ten children. Hey, I think I'll go for the car. Enjoy the funerals, guys." The argument that buying the car creates jobs is bogus. Providing care for those who need it also creates jobs.
Other countries are real-life experiments as to how different political regimes change the quality of life of the population. Countries Edsall would consider off-the-charts left wing - Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Holland - are among the wealthiest in the world per capita and consistently among the top in terms of happiness and well-being. The corporate tax rates seem to have done little to curb the economy.
Trump must go. Lets achieve this by helping people rediscover their humanity, not by calling basic moral values extreme.
7
Senator Warren is smart, courageous, and honest about what government should do to restore a leveled playing field for the people in this democracy. Political scientists base their conclusions on data, from the past. I doubt that political science can predict a revolution. Senator Warren is leading a revolution, and I am with her!
9
I rather have a progressive like Warren with BIG ideas, GUTS, and a willingness to fight the impish fool in the WH and the billionaire thugs on Wall Street then to have another Republican-lite Democrat who enters every political gun fight with a pool noodle rather than a gun.
EVERYTHING that Americans enjoy today as a BENEFIT or public good came from Progressives be they Democrats or Republicans. Exhibit A: Social Security; Exhibit B: Medicare/Medicaid; Exhibit C: Affordable Care Act (Growing increasingly popular despite Republican & WH efforts to kill it); Exhibit D: National Parks and early environmental laws, such as protection of migrant birds. (Teddy Roosevelt - a Republican, oh yeah, he also fought against the early 20th Century American Oligarchs like Mellon, Morgan, and Rockefeller as examples ); Exhibit E: Civil Rights and Voting Laws.
As much as I LOVE former President Obama, he is from the Republican-lite school of Democratic politics. His warning to Democrats about drifting too far left was a good example of a Republican talking point.
If Trump gets reelected, it won't be because of Progressive policies. It will be because the American public would rather have an authoritarian wannabee in the WH then a real patriotic American who takes her oath to the Constitution seriously.
11
The one who is proven dangerous, with vast and deep damage to prove it, is the one who stole the election.
There is no way Elizabeth Warren, or any of the Democratic front runners, can compete in that game.
There don’t seem to be any qualified candidates who are willing or able to take on the staggering job of repairing the awful mess we are in today.
4
@julia
If you think like a 'white' liberal elite, you won't see anyone. Transgress into the middle and working class area, there is two candidates that voters equate for integrity. One is Andrew Yang, the other Bernie Sanders. Andrew Yang is the one, Democrats should give him a chance to speak.
1
Mr. Edsall,
Very disappointed in your column today. Warren is the best thing to happen in American politics. Sure, she has a plan for everything, but that is what we need. Of course it will not happen overnight, but will better our nation and will be incremental. Trump is gutting all the progress made under both Dems & Reps for decades and the judges are horrifiic. She has a message, you do not.
11
Mr Edsall is staunchly defending the one inalienable right that Americans most cherish: The right to rip one another off.
8
Stuff and nonsense. Elizabeth Warren would make a fine president. This sniffs of the whole "is she likable" nonsense. Every single one of the Democrats running would make a fine president, particularly after the debacle unfolding before our eyes with Trump's impeachment hearings.
Warren, or any other Democrat running, would be far more likely try for policies that better the world instead of bettering her own pocket and re-election chances.
Stuff and nonsense.
Competency matters.
7
I dont understand why its so frowned upon to be progressive. There are many issues that need to be addressed immediately and cant wait until we hold everyone's hand to understand. Example, the planet is literally baking itself because we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. The only candidates that are providing real policies to help stop this are progressives. If you think that this is too extreme for moderates, i hope you like seeing you kids BBQed when they go outside in 20 years
7
Reading this Opinion by Esdall felt like facing an endless firing line, shooting in full. Why endless? Never have I read such a long list on naysayers. Have any of these 'experts' done anything meriting recognition for substantially improving the lives of most Americans? There is no way at this point to quantify the number of people or the economic class of those lining up against Elizabeth. We haven't had a leader with the know-how and commitment to rectify the mammoth gulf between the ultra rich and the rest of us for a long, long time. Remember the Roosevelts, Theodore and Franklin? Think of how they served the the vast majority of Americans. Starting with Reaganomics, followed by fits and starts, the dangerous economic gulf in our country has grown and grown more. Elizabeth Warren's plans only seem radical to some because of how far we have fallen from maintaining a fair economy. Don't be afraid of Elizabeth Warren but be wary of those that wouldn't move us more than an inch from this horrible status quo.
7
The gist of the "moderate" Democrat argument is, apparently, that we should go back to the Obama era reforms and build on them: the ACA, DACA, environmental actions.
This position is based on the assumptions that these reforms will still be in place on January 21, 2021.
That's a very shaky assumption. There's a very real possibility that on that date Obamacare will be dead and gone. DACA will have been abolished and its registrants deported. and who knows what wreckage will be left of the environment.
A Democratic President will be starting with a blank slate.
Let's get it right. We can resurrect ACA, which will already have been shot down by the courts. We can re-institute DACA, to no avail, as those 700,000 young people will be gone from our shores. We can half-step with the polluters,
Or we can finally get it right.
FDR is back, so let's remember, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself..."
Make no mistake, we are at war for the survival of the Nation and the planet. B and B offer us Chamberlain. Bernie and Warren offer us Churchill. Whom do you want leading us?
7
"Extremist candidates do worse, because . . . they fail to galvanize their own base and . . . encourage the opposing party’s base to turn out more, on average."
So that's how Trump lost the 2016 election!
The GOP runs candidates who embody the worst of humanity--the barbaric Trump, the priggish Pence, that guy in the south who hangs around teenage girls. Meanwhile the Dems are warned that their nominees' efforts to improve American lives are too extreme and must on no account be on the ballot. Really?
Thank you Harriet
4
Vote your preference in the primary.
Then—and this is almost all that matters—vote for the Dem nominee in November.
Even if that nominee is not your favorite, do not stay home. Do not vote third party. Do not sulk. Act like an adult.
9
I like this but also I think I would almost rather just not vote if Biden or Buttigeg get the nomination. At that point I would be looking to move to other countries and giving up on America.
1
I love these articles. Makes me want to vote Warren / Sanders even more.
Obviously taxing rich people is so much worse than Fascism.
9
The real "problem" with the Warren candidacy? Specificity. Of course, it's always easier to attack a plan or any position. BUT the real question is do you trust Elizabeth Warren to do the right thing, to be resilient enough to keep pushing forward? The answer is Americans do trust her, and she has championed the average American.
I trust her more than a Bain Capital private equity guy who just does financially-oriented deals.
I trust her more than another smart, smooth talking ex-McKinsey consultant who sounds good, but hasn't really done anything.
I trust her more than Bernie whose passion is great, but has never structurally changed anything in his Washington time.
I trust her more than Biden whose time is past and is playing a game with Repubs that leaves tireprints on his and America's back.
It's still early. The message will be tweaked here and there, but the trust will grow. For the average American who is open and believes in America's future, it's about a fair deal (not rigged) and health care and values.
5
The ideal Democratic candidate would be a conscientious centrist able to work effectively with the Left and the Right. But that was basically what Obama was, and the Right cynically demonized him and obstructed every single one of his policies, and almost all his judicial appointments.
The fact is, there is no center anymore. The Kochs, the Evangelicals, the ideologues and Fox News chased the moderates out of the Republican Party. The GOP has become a reactionary rump. Centrist Democrats are rapidly being displaced by the emerging young Progressive majority within the party. Unless Joe Biden somehow becomes a convincing progessive voice (very unlikely), Warren stands an excellent chance of taking the nomination.
So be it. If she is the Democratic candidate, let her win. She is the one who will of drain the swamp, co trary to Trump's fraudulent agenda.
5
Sad commentary on our society when such things as worker's rights, consumer protectionism, regulation of banks and monopolies are considered "extreme" policies.
11
Elizabeth Warren would be a disaster for the Democratic party. I fully agree with Obama regarding the lemming rush to push through a far-left agenda at this point. Why now when the priority should be to defeat Trump? Or isn't his deafeat a top priority? Are we willing to gamble? Do we really want four more years of Trump? Actually, I am starting to think it's more important to keep the House, win back the Senate and begin to curb the power of an out-of-control presidency for now and future generations. Also, we need to gain still more state governorships.
4
Our government is based upon the consent of the governed, not by who has the power to control it. It seems that a lot of people want to think that if their side wins an election, they are entitled to all that they want. It does not work that way. The minority who did not agree with the majority do agree to accept the results and to faithfully go along with the decision. If they cannot or will not, the authority of the majority can only be enforced with the force that the state may impose against the will of the minority. At that point, the government has become oligarchy and rule by the powerful over the weak.
Don't you people ever get tired of siding with the ideas and class that got us into this hideous predicament? Is unfettered capitalism and greed such a marvelous wonder you have to systematically go after anyone trying to better our world? It's very dispiriting. Give us more bank bail outs and hideous wars for oil, why don't you.
7
When I read columns like this from Edsall, I think that Warren sure seems to be scaring the right people. Warren 2020!!!
6
Warren is an independent thinker; for that precise reason, she is dangerous. Her ideas are radical because a passionate pursuit for real justice in our times is radical. Speaking truth to power is always dangerous. Simple fairness dictates that each person should have the same access to healthcare in America.
But for some reason, egalitarian access to healthcare, Medicare for All, is deemed radical. And it is radical, for in a sense, it is getting us back to our Founding roots, when the phrase " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" became a bulwark of our nation.
Given the systemic and profound inequities in our modern healthcare system, there is not "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for many, if not most Americans. Would we rather have Medical Debt continue as a leading cause of bankruptcy? How is it just to have two systems of healthcare: pure shoddiness at best for Medicaid patients and an entirely separate one for insured patients?
Warren is dangerous because she is real, she is authentic and has her finger on the pulse of the nation, and what real Americans experience on a daily basis: a struggle to survive in an age of sky-high income inequality, crippling student debt, and an unjust healthcare system.
6
Right! we need a moderate, who will not make waves. a technocrat like Hillary. How did that work out last time?
5
To the concept that "Extremist candidates do worse, because, contrary to rhetoric, they fail to galvanize their own base and instead encourage the opposing party’s base to turn out more, on average," I offer three words; A O C
1
I'm conservative ...more likely to vote GOP ...
but I would ...and I HAVE voted for individual Dem's ...even sent them money ...
I'm a little disgusted that ANYBODY would vote a certain party over another ... sometimes your preferred party has a horrible candidate ...
Sometimes the other party has a better one ...
It's NOT about winning ...its about the one who offers the better path to a better outcome ...
3
"Extremist candidates do worse, because, contrary to rhetoric, they fail to galvanize their own base and instead encourage the opposing party’s base to turn out more, on average."
How does this very questionable declaration apply to Donald Trump and his still unwavering base supporters?
5
That's a pretty irresponsible and sensationalist headline even if you marshal data that portends some losses in other elections down ballot.
Also, it does seem to me using a paper based on 2006-14 data is super weak to extrapolate from.
I hope the DNC isn't relying pre-Trump analyses like you are.
4
The sad thing about Elizabeth Warren is that she has proven herself to be utterly disingenuous.
She has artlessly ducked the lack of financial reality in her pie-in-the-sky healthcare plan.
We don't need more slippery people in politics
5
Why every other industrialized nation has what we do not — universal health care coverage — which was included in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and has been sought by numerous Presidents since Theodore Roosevelt (including Richard Nixon), and is considered an outrageous and extreme notion is disgraceful. As for Sen. Warren’s specifics, consider:
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/m4a-transition.
1
Stop. All of you, just stop.
If you don't think Warren's policies are best for the country, say so. Stop putting your concerns in the mouths of hypothetical voters. Stop phrasing everything as some kind of practical issue of 'electability.' Stop.
10
Ok, you want to scare us about Warren.
You do it because you want what is best for us, do not you, sir?
Mc Govern was just awful in 1972.
Unions were for Nixon then.
And Nixon was for Single Payer Healhcare, which he could not accomplish.
But the danger is Warren, you say.
And you say it for decent reasons, I hope.
And for our own good.
Thanks, sir.
4
We need a president who can help us calm down. We don't need a president who promotes an upheaval. We don't need a president who will sharpen the polarization that is so damaging. Warren and Sanders will not help us calm down. I can't imagine Sanders ever having a calming effect. Warren's plans will meet with the fiercest fight from business interests which she wants to neuter and take down. The chances of her plans becoming law are poor without a Democratic congress and chances of that are slim as Edsell tells us if she's elected. Even Democrats in Congress would hesitate to support some of her plans. No, it is not true from history that going big leads to victory. Warren confuses FDR's era with now. We don't face what existed then. Going big makes ordinary voters wary rather than winning their support.
4
Climate change, coastal flooding, global catastrophe is not going to wait around for gradualism.
4
Ms Warren is running at the wrong time in a country that is desperately trying to hold on to what we have achieved in 200 years and that is the democratic form of government with all it's messiness. Some of her ideas are so far ahead of other candidates and reflect the kind of thinking that could take us in to the future unafraid but we are being blindsided by the Republican onslaught which is trying to take down our country. Beto O'Rourke was the same kind of person and would have taken us forward not back but he will have another chance. The power base of business, billionaires, conservatives that really run this country will continue to fight against anything new or unique. They like their position and will do anything to hang on until the rest of us are vanquished. We have seen Gore and Hillary thrown under the bus and anyone else will be treated the same unless the majority stands up to them.
2
Warren just needs to adjust the scale of the proposed programs to be less draconian from the taxation side, and more gradual from the implementation side.
It looks like she is actually doing just that.
I think it's the sign of an intelligent candidate. When you can take in public feedback and adjust what you're doing to be better aligned with public opinion, that's... Well, honestly, that's a level of emotional maturity we haven't seen in politics for a long time.
Warren is on the right track. We need to address the wealth gap and start doing some good public works. We just have to do it with some patience and temperance.
5
All hand-wringing aside, the only things that matter are to win in the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin and to make sufficient inroads into other red states to win the Senate. From 2018 and some of 2019, we have evidence of the types of candidates who can win in those states so let's focus on those candidates who can win back the Presidency and the Senate and then start slowly implementing the policies that we believe. Step aside Fantasists and move forward Realists. Winning the next election is not the most important thing. It's the ONLY thing.
2
All of this just sounds like a bunch of billionaires and business execs worried that an actual liberal might get elected for once. Good. They should be scared. Go Liz!
11
Exactly. They are terrified of her, which makes me like her more.
8
Elizabeth Warren was a Republican up to 1999 or there about. It is said that what you are politically by college is what you are.
Bernie Sanders has always been an Independent Senator from Vermont. Not a Democrat.
Hillary Clinton was the president of the college Republicans when she was in college.
Joe Lieberman was Republican, Independent and Democrat. Whatever it took him to be in the power structure.
Jon Corzine, another so called Democrat was his Republican college’s president like Hillary Clinton when he was in college and Wall Street banker.
Former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg belonged to multiple Party’s.
David Gergen, a Reagan Republican if there ever was one and a top Reagan aid became a top advisor to Bill Clinton.
The real Democratic Party ceased to exist during Bill Clinton’s years. The 1994 midterm election to be exact is when Bill Clinton betrayed all the real Democrats that year and he turned “New” democrat. The Party changed with him.
My point is that today’s Democratic Party is infiltrated with those who are really Republicans at heart and that could be the reason for their weak and ineffective results politically.
4
If they run hard right, we run harder left.
4
Trump was an extremist candidate. He did pretty well in 2016.
9
This is a column for an older former majority. Old Boomers haven't really appreciated, and are often not very aware, often not very aware, of the changes in demographics, immediacy of climate change, debt load, and income inequality. These are the concerns of people 40-45. This analysis is spot on for 2000, but out of touch with younger voters today. And boomer voters are no longer a majority, and a dwindling voter. We all hate change, but it's desperately needed And Warren is the logical person to oversee it. Biden, like Edsall, is of bygone era.
13
Single payer health care for all is simply what a civilized society must do.
To call it extreme is nothing less than propagandizing.
The sooner we stop turning this into a political boogie man the better for everyone.
14
@Todd Parola Single Payer Healthcare, Universal Healthcare, Medicare for All. The Democrats use different titles every four years.
Socialized Medicine is the Republicans rebuttal every four years.
Meanwhile, nothing changes. The current system stays in place.
Our elections are a form of Groundhog Day.
1
This is the kind of editorializing that women have learned to expect when one of our gender has the audacity to run for the highest national office.
Implying that Warren is an "extremist" candidate who will "damage" the Democrats is akin to crying "wolf" in the most gender-biased way possible. ANY woman will obtain the extremist label under the analysis of political scientists who see the success of women in the political sphere as a dangerous trend in general. Misogyny is the most prevalent undercurrent in this analysis.
11
Calling Warren a danger smacks of sexism hiding behind a veneer of studious punditry and slavish moderation. Moderation and being beholden to corporate democrats, the billionaire class and their teams of lobbyists is what got us into this mess (along with the Reagan republicans). Basically moderate democrats are democrats in name only (dino?). Warren is a breath of fresh air and speaks truth to power on a whole range of issues. She is also more electable than Sanders in my opinion. Like Bernie she has the courage of her convictions, while the other candidates are blinded by their ambition to be president. Older white male pundits like Mr Edsall lack awareness of their outdated frame of reference.
9
Elizabeth Warren is NOT a leftist. She is center right.
6
Much criticism of Warren's $20 trillion/10 years M4A plan, but a simple internet search brings up the information that we currently spend $3.5 trillion per year on medical care ($35 trillion/10 years)--and that doesn't cover everyone.
11
November 20, 2019
Not an easy position to take but Mr. Edsall is right on the mark.
Thank you.
8
Warren/Sanders supporters are tired of the choice between sneering oligarchs (Republicans) and smiling oligarchs (Clintonite Democrats). We need politicians who stand up for working people not for banks. If the Democrats complete the Clinton/Obama shift to solely corporate friendly candidates and policies, you’ll see workers continue to abandon the party.
12
I know I’m whispering into a hurricane here, but we load up way too many broad, vague, and disparate policy ideas and character traits into terms like left or progressive, center or moderate, and right or conservative. We’ve become prisoners of our own heuristic device.
Also, it would be a significant move leftwards back towards what used to be the American center if we viewed taxes, infrastructure, education, free and fair competition, financial regulation, and environmental challenges more like the way we did before Reagan.
3
The moderates who want Democrats who will seek common ground with Republicans owe themselves an answer to the painfully obvious question that arises: What should the moderates do if Republicans refuse to seek common ground with them, or, as is more probable, pretend to join in the search for common ground while actually sabotaging the search?
The moderate response to Republicans who claim to seek common ground is to take their claim at face value. If they claim to seek common ground only if it does not include elements that can be characterized as socialistic or big-government, then moderates will look for such common ground. Moderate Obama adopted a Republican proposal for health care in order to seek common ground, and we know how that turned out.
If Charlie Brown goes to kick the football and Lucy yanks it away, what will moderates support to prevent Lucy from yanking it away again? Anything that hinders Lucy from yanking the football away again will be a limitation on her freedom and therefore not moderate. So Charlie Brown is doomed to endlessly setting up to kick the football and winding up flat on his back as the football is yanked away; there is no moderate way to get the football kicked unless Lucy relents. And, breaking her promises to hold the football this time, she never does.
7
This is exactly what has been happening every time we elect a so called moderate. The center has swung so far to the right that FDR seems extreme left. We keep hearing how we must not do anything to upset the status quo, for fear of alienating the Republicans. So then we elect a moderate and it’s more of the same. Any changes made are so small and incremental that nothing really improves. The rich still keep getting richer, everyone else keeps getting poorer.
You don’t see the Republicans wringing their hands over what moderate Democrats want. Because it doesn’t matter! They know those people aren’t going to vote for them in significant numbers so they don’t chase their votes.
2
Hopefully 2020 will be all-cards-on-the-table election.
Okay, America, what are you for:
Grappling with change, and progressive ideas that might not be perfect but are at least positioned along the road to better things...
Or lies, fear, anger and darkness.
Let's have it out, no interference from other countries, no voter suppression, let's have a straight-up vote and take an actual tally of where we're at as a nation, and then go from there.
5
Edsall quotes Richard North Patterson, the novelist and former chairman of Common Cause, "Her [Warren's] dilemma encapsulates the Darwinian dynamics of the Democratic field: Four top-tier candidates drawn into an ever-tightening circular firing squad which, by the end, may grievously wound its sole survivor."
No. All four in the Edsall/Patterson hypothetical are and will be aiming at Trump and the Trumpers in Congress. There is no evidence, nada, that this is not true. And this is what the Dem base and the Dem 2016 stay at homes really care about. Edsall's ponderous pondering through ever more fine screens of polls that are too early to mean anything and , opaque social science pronouncements from on high, and, most disturbingly, by failed outsiders in the election biz, fail to grasp the meaning of the 2020 election.
It's about Trump. It's about the Dem turnout.
Warren's not the Dems problem or the answer to the 2020 election. Trump is the problem. Turnout is the answer. ALL Democrats agree on this.
2
Remember they said Trump couldn’t win either. So much for predictions at this point
1
So, to have a Democratic majority in Congress, we need a "Republican Lite" President?
Seems to me, we did that before. Bill Clinton was nominated and elected instead of, among others, Jerry Brown (what a mistake). And immediately following, was the Republican revolution of the 1994 election, with the GOP picking up 54 House seats and 8 in the Senate.
And for the remainder of Clinton's two terms, he had Republican majorities in both the House and Senate.
So you might as well elect the Prescient you think would be best, because divided government is likely no matter who were to win.
11
@RM
HRC did not embrace centrists. She betrayed them and threw their votes to Trump.
She ignored the rust belt and insulted working people. Trump got them to believe he cared about them.
So, how to beat Trump? Win back those lost votes in the middle. That’s where the most votes are up for grabs, in independents and moderates of both parties.
Go get those votes back, and win.
4
It is clear that Ms. Warren is incredibly intelligent and cares about the well being of her fellow human. I do, however, believe that some of her views are so extremely liberal, that they will not hold with many average Americans.
If you are a person that just paid off $75k in student loan, through hard work and sacrifice, it would make sense that forgiving student loan debt starting now seems unfair. I am all for restructuring the way that state universities charge tuition, but forgiving debt that someone agreed to seems wrong. At the end of the day, if you agreed to the debt, then it is your responsibility. No one forced you to take the debt on.
The idea of offering inmates gender reassignment surgery is absurd. This does not make sense and most reasonable people agree with that notion. What happens when I want gender reassignment surgery? Oh, that's right, I have to pay for it either out of my pocket, or with the assistance of my insurance. Ideas like this will not get Ms. Warren elected.
10
Look at that in such way: you was lucky to be able to pay off the loan, other people are not so. It is not a secret that people who entered the workforce during the Great Recession have a hard time to find well-paying jobs. And it is not true that nobody forced them to take loans, until recently, the college education was a ticket to the good jobs. So, they have choice to take loan and to improve their lives, or to stay poor, and again get blame that they did nothing to try get out of poverty. Seems to me, they did a sensible choice, and that is not their fault that the economy went down and number of the well-paid jobs decreased, limiting their ability to re-pay the loan. Beside, we have the Government paying for school education, and nobody has any beef with that, why not for higher education?
2
Many, like me, entered college before the economy crashed but graduated after. I might have made a different choice had I known the bankers were going to derail the economy and make it very hard to get anything beyond a low wage job.
@Brian
[[The idea of offering inmates gender reassignment surgery is absurd. ]
Maybe, and in the scheme of things it is a financial TRIVIALITY compared to the huge tax breaks for the rich that just exploded the deficit and will increase the tax burden on working and poorer people over it's lifetime.
The gender reassignment thing is simply a right wing red-herring, like them crying about "discrimination against whites" and other right wing nonsense.
Wake up and pay attention to what matters dude.
2
I can see people splitting the ticket if Warren is the nominee: Voting for Warren so we can dump Trump but then voting for moderate Reps in the House and Senate (if there are any available).
1
Why is the republican Edsall so concerned about whether the Democrats will win in Congress? Because he an and the rest of the corporate toadies are very afraid of Warren. She has the right polities for the people and can articulate them. They are doing everything they can to turn people away from her. It is just going to make them more determined.
11
not only will she try to transform USA into Scandinavia - what would Emerson say? - but she has zero foreign policy experience/gravitas in a realpolitik world.
4
Compared to Trump’s wealth of foreign policy experience? Are you kidding me? At least she is smart enough to listen to those around her who do. And she reads, which puts her way above the orange embarrassment we have now.
2
I know this sort of pearl-clutching will get a warm reception among the Times readership. It's also exactly the kind on thinking that allowed many less-involved voters to dismiss tone-deaf, moderate Hillary Clinton and stay home in 2016, or worse, decide they wanted the candidate who promised them "real" change.
They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
4
So if warren or Bernie are nominated the authorities cited and their posse are going to vote for trump as the lesser evil?
6
As a Democrat, if I am honest with myself, and as much as it pains me, I frankly must accept Mr. Edsall’s well grounded, very strong argument concerning Warren’s pulling the Democratic Party over the Left Wing Cliff, and that her actions will prop up The Don for four more years, four more years, four more years...
Darn you and your stating the obvious Me. Edsall.
10
Extremist candidates do worse? Isn't/wasn't Donal Trump extremist? Did he do worse. I am not a Warren fan; but on the face of it, Trump contradicts Edsall's arguments.
10
@Larry Powell Well said! Trump is the best possible argument for extremism.
3
There are so many basic flaws in Elizabeth Warren’s approach she is destined to lose.
The reality is that the electoral balance between the Democrats and the GOP is remarkably even.
Warren is a naive academic acting up for an ultra left wing Democratic echo chamber by offering extreme policies.
Warren’s toxic stew of polarising policies will drive sensible people back to the Republicans.
===
Decriminalising illegal immigration and offering free healthcare to illegal immigrants will massively amplify all the existing problems associated with uncontrolled immigration.
Whereas a smart country selects immigrants on the basis of their strategic economic value, opening the floodgates for poorly educated economic migrants who will overwhelm state and federal education, social security, educational and law and order resources and generate resentment from those Americans whose needs are already poorly served.
===
There is no need to smash big tech companies when some of them just need some strict and well-defined legislative boundaries.
===
The US health care industry is a woefully expensive, profit-driven, inefficient and opportunistic parasite that serves people selectively but is also deeply entrenched and a major employer. The Government should create/acquire a non-profit public hospital network and offer citizens the ability to opt-in to a guaranteed public health care system (redirecting any employment related health insurance payments).
8
There are so many things with your proposals. I will not address the illegal immigration, because I don't hear her to encourage the illegal immigration, but only humane treatment of them including provide healthcare when they need. We provide healthcare to murders, why not extend generosity to the illegal immigrants who as so many before them. As matter of fact the illegal immigrants were ones who established this country. But she definitely right to break the big companies, including tech. We all remember the banks that were too big to fail, and as result we were forced to bail out. They surely came out well, while millions workers suffered for long time. The big companies acquire so much power that the Government has a hard time to regulate them. And the Government option will not much help with healthcare, because it limits the regulatory power of the Government and that will lead to escalating healthcare cost that will either bankrupt the country or middle class.
1
@yulia
RE Your Assertion:
"And the Government option will not much help with healthcare, because it limits the regulatory power of the Government and that will lead to escalating healthcare cost that will either bankrupt the country or middle class."
Not so.
By operating a chain of hospitals 'at cost' the Government will actually be able to minimise the cost of supplying health care services to people on the public scheme.
Furthermore, the Government will be able to benefit from insured patients who consume services in the Government hospitals by simply charging the prevailing inflated "commercial rates" to the insurers.
The point is that structural change is absolutely necessary and it needs to be accomplished within the context of the existing market in an incremental manner.
The USA spends 15% of its GDP on healthcare for only a portion of its population. Many other western nations provide good-to-excellent healthcare to ALL of their people for under 8% of GDP.
@yulia
Going soft on "illegal immigration" will encourage "illegal immigration" for sure ?
Why stay in Guatemala when you can get free lunches and health care in the USA ?
Where is your free lunch going to be made ?
In China based on the US debt mountain ( $23 trillion ) ?
Or do you imagine it will be paid for by billionaires and innovators who have left the USA to escape a raving socialist ?
Trust the Republicans ..... every naive, stupid thing Warren has said on the primary campaign trail will come back to haunt her.
Warren is toast ... she just does not know it yet because she is being carried away by the sound of her own lectures in her echo chamber.
1
This article really nails it. We are all aware of the Nader Effect, where a hyper-partisan third party candidate drains votes from the mainstream candidate, leading to electoral defeat. But such a candidate working within a mainstream party can also lead to election loss, when the country as a whole just can't accept the extreme positions offered, and chooses instead to go with the other party, despite the obvious character flaws of that party's candidate. It is better to have a moderate candidate, open to new ideas that could be implemented later, but more broadly acceptable to the nationwide electorate, than to scare moderate, centrist voters away, and either lose the election, or perhaps win, while losing Congressional majorities in the process. It is useless to be pure in your convictions, and lose the election.
1
Warren is neither left nor right. She is for poor and middle class. On Medicare, she will pursue to ensure medical care for all, a combination of private and public with private disappearing on its own. There won’t be much of shift in Congress. Only Wall Street need to worry about the dangers of Warren presidency
7
So if it comes down to Warren vs Trump in 2020 all those who complain she's too progressive will what:
Stay home and not vote?
That's what happened in 2016 and look at what it got us.
If you're a Democrat and your candidate is not chosen, are you really, truly going to allow Trump to get elected again?
Because that's who elected Trump: the Democrats that stayed home. Or voted on a different line.
Any Democrat who feels that's ok because their particular favorite candidate didn't get chosen is nuts.
I don't know what Democrats are afraid of when they think of Elizabeth Warren.
OK, you're not crazy about some of her progressive ideas. Really?
The basic premise of Warren's ideas support lower and middle class Americans who have at best been treading water since 1980, and more likely have been slowly sinking down the economic ladder.
What's so horrible about that?
Stop listening to all the minutiae;
Elizabeth Warren is a good person who wants to help people who've been harmed by the economy since 1980 and St. Ronny's Rule.
Trump is out for himself, and his rich buddies.
Why are we quibbling?
If you want to get rid of Trump, vote for the Democratic candidate, no matter who it is.
I personally hope it's Elizabeth Warren.
5
I prefer Warren or Sanders but I will vote for any Democrat with a pulse rather than vote for Trump.
1
Trump would be putty in Warren’s hands.
Warren paid for a single TV ad to run ONCE during a popular finance show and then had every news station and website replaying it FOR FREE. There had to be 50 or more news articles on it in a single day. All from a single TV ad buy.
Warren is outsmarting the billionaires.
And people think Warren can't beat Trump?
9
In Seattle prices are being driven up exponentially by the monetization of housing, leading to over ten thousand homeless. On this basis alone, I am supporting Warren.
13
That is spreading to other cities now. Too many homeless everywhere. Jobs just don’t pay enough.
1
@AF
Well she did flip houses during the Recession, she must have a plan about monetization of housing.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/05/elizabeth-warren-real-estate-profiteer-jillian-kay-melchior-eliana-johnson/
"Extreme"???
What is extreme is the takeover of the political system by the superrich, the raping of the economy via deregulation of the financial system, massive tax cuts for the rich.
After WWII, we had BALANCE AND FAIRNESS in the U.S. financial system.
The regulations and tax structures in the 30's and post war put in place to prevent another great depression (they worked well and as a result we had a growing middle class, greatly improving infrastructure and education system) were DISMANTLED BY REAGAN and his rich cronies. The almost immediate result? The historic Savings and Loan scandal, a TRILLION dollars robbed from the U.S. treasury by FRAUD.
Followed up with continued tax loopholes and deregulation of the mortgage and other industries and we have the worldwide financial collapse in 2008, AGAIN due to massive fraud facilitated by deregulation.
THAT is the extreme structural change we experienced.
Warren just wants to put the system back in BALANCE.
14
Everywhere you look, rich people and their minions are sounding the alarm about Elizabeth Warren. How frightened they are that she might restore equilibrium and decency. They are afraid because, alas, equilibrium and decency require that the rich be taxed along with the rest of us.
Warren must stay the course. The billionaires' reactions tells us that she's not just hitting a nerve, she's paralyzing them with fear. It's very encouraging.
19
I'm distressed by the number of comments here that "shoot the messenger." We all live in our own echo chambers; in my own particular echo chamber, which is occupied by moderates with leans toward both parties, Warren is viewed as scary. She is indeed pushing people toward Trump. She is causing people just a few degrees to my right to say to me, "If it comes down to it, Peter, I beg you, just STAY HOME." I know that many Democrats more liberal than I am are having trouble acknowledging the risk she represents, that she could be risky at all, but I urge you for a moment to face the possibility that what Edsall says, what I write here, are in fact true. If she wins the nomination, her polarizing effect will be very important in my home state, Pennsylvania, and in a few other close swing states that the Democrats really, really need to win. Will I vote for her if she wins the primary? Yes, with apprehension. Will others just a few steps to my right vote for her? No. They won't. Why? Because she scares them. And the Democrats will lose Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida as a result.
4
Yes, having her with 16% or 19% voter support in Democratic caucuses is one thing, having her in charge of the party for 4 years is another.
2
Thanks for the enlightenment, Mr. Edsall. So progressives . being "extremists", have no business asserting a role in our politics. Life before Trump, after all, was a paradise and we need only return there. Lopsided concentration of wealth, stagnant wages, people with health insurance nonetheless driven to bankruptcy by catastrophic illness, disappearance of affordable housing; addressing such problems requires no bold initiatives -- we need only oust Trump.
What better reason to seek public office than to seize the opportunity to tinker?
11
Let's just keeping pumping out centrist presidents who make right wing favored deals with Republicans for 4 to 8 years, all before them elephants take over the White House yet again? Isn't THAT more dangerous?
If we continue to subscribe to the feedback loop mentality that a progressive presidential candidate cannot beat a Republican, then guess what? It will never happen. And then what? Enjoy your streaming device on your life raft during a balmy 110 degree day. Wake up! The only way to accomplish progress is full speed ahead, until it happens.
13
No one who voted for Hilary last time will be voting for Trump this time. So that means all that’s really needed is to pick up working class voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. That can be done with progressive economic policies and moderately conservative social policies - and Warner fits that mode.
Obama ran on vaguer progressive rhetoric “Change” and “Yes, We Can” - but the bankers that funded him made sure he ruled from the right.
No democrat can win if they do not run from the left. I’ll go even further - they need to be left on economic issues but somewhat conservative on social issues. That wins in the south, north, east and west.
I’m not a Warner fan - I think she has issues with honesty - so I’m a Bernieac but Warner does fit the mold of progressive on economic issues and conservative (for the family) on social issues - so she’d probably win. I see Trump as outstanding case of demonic, which will contrast with just about anyone who runs against him. He’ll be lucky to sweep the south and the plains states.
3
Climate change laws have fared much the same as better health care laws have, yet if we don't address the long term issues of climate change, the short term issues of healthcare won't matter much. While I don't specifically back Warren, we can't nominate a milquetoast type either. We can't afford another four years of Trump as a nation. Republicans can't afford to keep him in office either because he is destroying their party, or rather they are in supporting Trump to keep the votes of their base.
3
We've been watching, since 1980, the Democrats following the quite organized GOP farther and farther to the right, with little organized pushback from Democrats to create a consistent counter-narrative to the ones the GOP has drilled into the minds of a poorly informed public. Now we're facing likely catastrophic crises that must be addressed before they end our civilization and we have little more than a decade to seriously address them. So should we select a 'moderate Democrat' (not different the GOP 40 years ago) who will continue to work within the GOP narrative and not seek the fundamental changes we desperately need or should we take a chance on candidates who are willing and ready to pursue a counter-narrative and deep changes? I don't think this is much of a choice. If a deep change candidate loses out to Trump, they should be able to at least push the narrative to where a deep change candidate might win in the future. Going moderate, even if the moderate takes the presidency, won't set up the possibility for changes needed to prevent the end of our civilization. Some of Warren's and Sander's views are unpopular with know-nothing 'moderates' (They won't Democratic cooperation with the GOP? Have they seen anything that's happened on GOP cooperativeness since 1992?). Maybe Warren can educate them, and I suspect she has the political savvy to shift her positions for the general election.
12
Though I personally liked Hillary Clinton she was despised by much of the country including many democrats. Biden does not have this baggage. I see so many comments about how hillary was moderate and democrats lost and how this means we shouldn't run a moderate. This is incredibly simplistic. What about Obama and Bill Clinton? They ran moderate and inclusive campaigns and fared very well. Those examples also don't mean biden is the most likely to beat Trump. But certainly the evidence and logic Mr Edsall refers to is far more of a basis to settle this than the "but Hillary was a moderate and she lost" bit
5
Imho, following the GOP to the right has led us to where we are today. It seemed pragmatic in 1992 with Clinton but we have seen how far Republican light has wrought: a near-fascist GOP and a propaganda-spewing right wing media that pushes the agenda of a criminal President to the woefully uninformed. Meanwhile, the middle class continues to lose ground, we have a broken health care system, and racist people feel emboldened to discriminate and attack. Let's no forget that there's a mass shooting somewhere in the US every month. A vote for a moderate Democrat means a continuation of the status quo; a vote for a progressive Democrat means we can finally move forward with the rest of the industrialized world.
2
Obama was running, actually, on the quite progressive agenda, including healthcare reform that included the public option, which at that time was sure a 'socialist' thing. Beside the whole idea of the black President was revolutionary, Unfortunately, he was not a fighter and we ended up with his quite mediocre Presidency .
I think one of Ms. Warrens tax proposal is to tax incomes above 132 k or so ...some people might be paying more than 50 percent in highly taxed states. Why would anyone want that? Why not confine yourself to taxing billionaires ?
5
@Sam Zamm
You mean raising the Social Security cap so that the program remains solvent. People look greedy when they whine about that. If taxes and/or the cost of living in your city is too high, you have the freedom to move elsewhere. No one is forced to live in NYC or San Francisco.
5
@Sam Zamm Your facts are wrong. Warren's two-cents tax starts at $50 million and 3 cents on billionaires.
2
With all due respect, you and moderate democrats have got it wrong. It's not the messenger it's the message.
Trump ran as a Republican, and as such he cloaked his message in a cape of old school conservative values (MAGA). The reality is, high paying manufacturing jobs and (gasp) government regulation of immigration are not historically conservative positions. ( It was republicans who favored illegal immigrant labor to keep costs down, especially in big cities. Remember Mayor Rudy?)
Now Trump hasn't delivered on a lot of this, but outside of the 'radical progressives' nobody else even mentions these issues.
Voters are not interested in prolonged wars in the middle east, nor do they care if Iran sells natural gas to South Korea and India.
People want healthcare and living wages, and affordable
tuition for their kids. They want to be able to afford retirement, and not lose their homes to escalating local taxes.
Moderate democrats aren't discussing these topics. Warren and Bernie are. And if they don't start doing so in a credible way, they are going to lose. Again.
9
I was a hesitant first time voter for Obama, but enthusiastic second term voter.
I see a similar future for Warren. Cuz, that's just the way people are. Once you show them it's about THEM, it's easy.
7
I personally feel the Democrats should focus just as much, if not more, on regaining the Senate and holding the House. McConnell has demonstrated that if you have a Democrat in the Whitehouse, but he controls the Senate, there will four years of complete inaction. It is likely Ginsberg will not last another administration, so McConnell will not allow a replacement to be appointed. Even if a Republican is in the Presidency, the House and Senate can pass legislation. If the Democrats fail to get the Senate and win the House and the Presidency, there will be four years of nothing - McConnell will refuse to give the Democrats any "wins". Even if Warren were to win, her ideas would be drastically modified by Congress - they are people running in Districts that do not have a national constituentcy. Frankly it is discouraging except for getting Trump out would at least put the brakes on the corruption and destruction of our international political alliances.
3
May I offer an alternative? Whatever you personally think of the credibility of them, Trump’s accusations against Biden’s son paint a disturbing picture. Lets separate those accusations from the egregious offenses Trump has committed.
Hunter Biden was paid some $3,000,000.00 by a foreign company demonstrated to be corrupt while his father was the VP. That’s a fact a lot of Democratic party voters appear to be pretending is irrelevant. It’s relevant to me and likely also to many independent-minded voters. Yes, the Democrats should take care who they nominate. Should Sleepy Joe really be that person??? Should some lesser known alternative establishment candidate like Patrick be the one? While I’m perpetually disappointed Sherrod Brown skipped the contest, Warren is a solid candidate. Please, NYT, stop undermining her at every turn.
6
@Aaron
It seems that anyone who has an issue with crony capitalism is asking for purity. That’s behavior that we’re supposed to just accept.
2
@BK
Not purity but integrity. It should not be too much to demand.
Trump disrupted the Republican Party. Why shouldn’t Warren disrupt Dems? I’m 61 and it’s been the same nonsense my entire life. It’s now or never. If AOC we’re old enough I would vote for her. We need a political upheaval. The two party system has outlived its usefulness. And get rid of the electoral college and make gerrymandering illegal.
14
This is one person's opinion, however way he wants to slant your thinking to his, that is his goal. If media stuck to actual reporting of the facts, these pages would be empty. Media gutted Clinton and got trump to the electoral college. Where are the reporters of facts?
1
It seems every time the demos bring up a bill (Social Security,Medicare) or a candidate that supports these progressive broadenings of our social safety net the nation has an chorus of so called "moderates" and of course right wing repubs screaming "extremism, radical" with the wing nuts throwing "communist", dangerous socialism. It's a big coalition with a lot of $ and name recognition and they try to position themselves as the "adults" in the room who know better. What they essentially support is inadequate or, no healthcare for millions of working and even middle class Americans. Of an economy with even the middle class finding itself "one paycheck from disaster". Most Americans finding the necessary college for themselves or their children, financially out of reach or adding a dangerous burden to their finances. These "moderate demos" and repubs are ok with increasing or maintaining our bloated military and its adventures; they're ok with protecting the wallets of the ultra wealthy and powerful corporations even at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. This denial of basic needs for so many Americans is necessary for our nation even though across the pond we see how a stronger social safety net can work in Germany, Norway, etc. These squealing "radical, extremism" really comes down to leave my fat wallet alone!
10
Why the discussion of Warren but not Sanders? Is this misogyny in action? I submit that a great deal of the criticism of Warren is because she is a woman.
11
I wish all those moderates who demand Democrats be willing to compromise and work with the “other side” would go talk to the Republicans.
Republicans made it clear a long time ago that it is their way or the highway on every issue. So how exactly are Democrats supposed to compromise with the party Of ideologues who will go to any lengths to stuff their unpopular, extreme positions down the throats of Americans even if it means violating every tradition and norm.Who are these “moderates” and what fantasy world are they living in? Have they ever heard of Mitch McConnell and the Supreme Court vacancy that occurred in the last year of Obama’s term? Where in the real world have Republicans met anyone “half-way” since the Supreme Court stuffed George W Bush into the White House by shutting down the Florida recount.
It is win or die trying on every issue and until Democrats get as ruthless as Republicans in defending their goals, our country will continue to circle the drain. We are already virtually a third-world banana republic dedicated to making sure the rich can continue to pillage the rest of us! If an individual kidnapped a sick baby and demanded a million dollars in order to allow the child to receive needed treatment, people would be furious. But drug companies essentially do this every day, and since it is corporate blackmail, we accept it as fine. Take this same behavior and multiply it on any issue you can name. That is what compromise has gotten us!
7
@Christine Juliard
Yes, we have people engaging in pie-in-the-sky thinking, and it’s not progressives.
2
We're not interested in doing right by this country and setting up the next generations for success, we're only interested in winning the next election cycle.
Duh.
7
I don't believe Elizabeth Warren is radical or dangerous. This kind of fear mongering is not helpful to anyone.
19
How much could Obama get Republicans to do? Pretty close to zero. Yep right Warren will change everything. Readers should take a trip to the 5 states that matter. Wake up. It’s about winning.
2
The political center is distorted, with words "extremist or radical" for policies we badly need. Mega donors define political terms for the nation. Our media echoes them.
Where is a columnist to analyze why what's centrist in other capitalist democracies' is labeled 'extremist' in the US?
Why still in the 21st Century we have muliti millions uninsured.
Why many citizens in the world's 'richest' nation, still must endure great financial hardship, even bankruptcy for HC. Only in America.
Why is it acceptable for the US to have the most expensive and most profitable HC in the world? And same for elections?
Who is paying the medical bills for all the victims of our mass shootings that we see recurring regularly?
Why can't our leading paper, the NYTimes, have just 1 op ed columnist--just 1--- who explains how dozens of countries have achieved some form of Medicare for All for generations ago now?
Where are real people examples of how average citizens of various income levels, in dozens of democracies, pay for HC? Isn't that the big story of our times?
Dates when a few countries started HC for all—See True Cost Blog for complete list:
Norway 1912 Single Payer
New Zealand 1938 Two Tier
UK 1948 Single Payer
Canada 1966 Single Payer
Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier
Finland 1972 Single Payer
France 1974 Two-Tier
Australia 1975 Two Tier
Switzerland 1994 Insurance Mandate
The Times is an international paper.
16
"There will never be a shortage of voices in the media ready to bury the left," a progressive journalist wrote after the 2018 midterms.
This is important in thinking about Edsall's right liberal opinion piece regarding the putative "dangers" of a progressive win:
it is not an analysis, it is a self-interested argument by liberal media supporting the dominant, right liberal forces of the Democratic establishment in its battle against its large progressive left flank.
Yes, Edsall's argument is support by statistical analyses - but you only find what you look for, as they say.
For progressive arguments regarding the 'meaning' of the 2018 midterms, you have to read actual progressive arguments on sites other than the NYT.
These pieces do not give objective analyses anymore than Edsall's does. But they do give a pov on left chances that you won't get from him:
[https://www.thenation.com/article/democrats-2018-midterms-lessons/]
[http://inthesetimes.com/article/21567/left-progressive-midterms-2018-democrats-next-steps]
8
Have seen Warren's immigration proposal? Make it easier for illegal immigrants to enter the US and then coddle them when they arrive.
4
There is only one thing that will really affect the number of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants that are coming to the US. The conditions in their home countries. Nobody in their right mind wants to leave home for a dangerous, uncertain journey to a foreign land with little change of success unless conditions at home are worse. Us being more brutal won’t do anything. They figure they will die if they stay so anything is better than that. And allowing them to purchase insurance isn’t coddling, it’s saving money. Because they still get sick and then they go to the emergency room, which is the most expensive place to get healthcare. And we pay for it in higher costs passed along to us. This is not protecting the immigrants it’s protecting the taxpayers wallet.
1
The problem with Mr. Edsall’s concern is that following his idea we would elect a milk-toast individual for President and get nothing done for another four years. In addition to repairing the damage to our environment, to our former allies, to splitting the country into silos of likeminded people that don’t trust anyone in a different silo, and having huge disparity in income, there are some real problems to deal with. If you think the Trump wall is a bad image, wait a decade until much of central and South Americas is starving and you have thousands of dead bodies on our southern borders and military law protecting rationed food, water and power. The scientists are now admitting that the Climate Changes are moving substantially faster than they had expected. There are huge fields of methane in frozen tundra and deep cold oceans that are warming and will greatly accelerate global warming. There will be panic and tough decisions that will make most people unhappy, and we will have a nice person that offers “thoughts and prayers” as our president. OMG We need someone that will lead and get things moving. The idea we have is not just someone that can win, but someone who will save our Civilization. And her name is Elizabeth.
4
The New York Times is determined to attack any politician who threatens the Establishment. Although liberal in social mores, the newspaper fiercely protects the interests of its corporate advertisers. In 2016 the paper more or less ignored Sanders, but was less than supportive of Clinton, the more centrist candidate. In an effort to appear even handed, the paper equated Clinton's e-mails with all of Trump's various misdeeds.
It also gave more coverage to Trump, as his entertainment value was greater than the more serious Clinton.
Unfortunately, the Gray Lady is not alone. The Washington Post, another supposedly liberal paper, is certainly no fan of Warren. Much of the rest of Media is centrist or conservative, and therefore not likely to support someone with innovative ideas, who would also unnerve the Establishment. It's enough to make a person who desires a more democratic country rather than the oligarchy we have now to dispair.
9
This essay should be titled "The Danger of Neoliberalism." We live in an era when conventional moderate approaches and incrementalism have been swept away by populist movements. To think status quo politics is still an effective strategy is ludicrous.
7
"They (voters) want someone who will not preach but someone who will listen. Trump gave them that vision..."
Trump listen? Have you seen one of his rallies? The only ones listening are the MAGA fanatics. They might be hearing preaching, but most of the country hears hatred and divisive rhetoric.
4
While I'm sure some of the spirited, outraged response from Warren partisans is genuine, if I was a gambler I'd wager a small sum a lot comes from the RNC, the Trump operation and his fans in distant capitals ( with onion domes) cloaking themselves as our party's Left wing. They just salivate at the mention of the Senator's name.
Mr. Edsall mentions the so-called "Justice" Democrats as pushing a hard Left agenda and losing most of the races they've backed.Their situation is instructive. Their public statements make clear it is all about beating Democrats in deep blue districts for them. Their unofficial slogan is elections are secondary and who needs to beat Republicans anyhow? These are the people who will keep Congress for us and beat Trump? Are you kidding?
1
Centrists kept loosing seats from 2008 up to 2016, only when Dems start to embrace the progressive agenda they were able to get some seats and be competitive in such states as Texas. The centrists have their share of losses. NC is an example where McCready, so moderate it was difficult to distinguish him from Rep, lost to the Rep, whose party was caught cheating in the election.
1
The notion that Dems who prefer candidates other than Warren and Sander are beholden to corporate interests, dislike change, and inherently corrupt is insulting and fact-free. Some of us see far more opportunity for change with other candidates who are better at coalition building. In fact, we are the backbone of the party. We will vote for the winner, as we always do. But, you and your candidates are not superior. Listen to Obama and get over your purity politics.
The last presidential election lays wast this "pundit's" claim. Quote "Extremist candidates do worse, because, contrary to rhetoric, they fail to galvanize their own base and instead encourage the opposing party’s base to turn out more, on average."
Yeah, right. like Trump caused Hillary's base to show up in force and that cost him the election. God I have a hard time reading these so called experts opinions.
2
The Midwest and African Americans will decide the general election IMO, and both of those constituencies seem to lean toward Biden. My two preferences are Klobuchar and Buttigieg but I'll vote for whoever is the nominee.
Right now maybe. It’s early though. Biden has name recognition on his side.
My fear is that compared to Trump, Biden will look slow and old. Warren is sharp as a tack and won’t take any of Trump’s garbage. The right is also going to hammer the Hunter issue relentlessly, and although he probably didn’t do anything illegal, it looks corrupt. Warren has no such issue.
1
All this fussing about the persuadable voters and moderate democrats is silly. The pool of potential support is not defined by registered democrats or even registered voters. The largest group of voters are non-voters: in the 2016 election, only 60% of eligible voters made it to the polls. The other 40% are the ones that candidates should be trying to reach. Progressive policies and goals can appeal to people who are not currently active voters, so stop pretending that we have to calculate our vision around the whims of a small slice of swing voters.
1
Moderation and not attempting to deal with systemic issues in the ground floor will lead to next Trump 2.0
Trump represents we have a problem in society. Moderates are insincere in the extreme if they think republicans are going to just sit back and not look for their next Trump. They have accomplished a huge amount paving a way for the unitary executive as the federalist society and Barr preach. They are planning on dominating this country and it is obvious.
If we don’t deal with the system inequality leading to the blaming of immigrants we will fail. This is not an if it is a when. Look back in the history of globalization and race blame. Republicans didn’t go in on Trump because if racism. The excuse was the inequality caused by globalization to add fuel to the undercurrents of racism.
Republicans in there current state are not our friends nor our colleagues. They represent neo-fascism. I support Warren or Bernie simply because I believe they offer the only plans to truly confront this threat.
This isn’t going away by tweaking the edges. It’s malignancy will only grow and the next Trump will likely succeed in over throwing the republic. Do you get it moderates? Do you honestly see what is going on?
You talk about unity to a person instead of the policy needed to help pull us away from this precipice.
2
That unity thing, interesting how it’s always the left who must give up what they want to join the moderates. But never does it work in the reverse.
Warrens 2% wealth tax is not only legally weak, but those of this wealth would have options. For a similar outlay, decent digs in low tax locales such as Monaco or Malta are available. Once this citizenship is established (while keeping a place in the U.S.) there would be less federal contributions by the plutocratic class in the long run.
Her next impulsive act was her immediate call for Justice Kavanaugh's impeachment when there was a new report of sexual improprieties in his college years. As a lawyer, it's amazing that she has no appreciation for why "statutes of limitation" are part of our justice system.
Warren has been the most extreme of candidates on the 5th anniversary of "Ferguson" . She was the only one accusing the officer who killed Michael Brown of "murder." The reality was officer Daren Wilson acted legally in self defense. Other candidate implied that Brown was murdered, but avoided the slanderous word. A short glance at the Wikipedia article would have conveyed the reality.
If the nominee, she will be castigated. Racism is a scourge, no matter what race is the target.
4
And before you ask I told Warren the exact same thing about Ferguson. Quit making it a target & let the community recover!
There are only 2 people who really know what happened to Michael Brown and one of them is dead. You don’t know anymore than anyone else. So stop acting like you have the answers!
I work a rock’s throw from Ferguson. This cost me years of raises due to our clientele being afraid to come near Ferguson because of all this. It’s not some abstract issue from far away for me, this has affected my life, my co workers lives, my boss’s life, all our families lives and NONE of us shot anyone, NONE of us did anything to deserve it. So for the love of God stop trying to stir this up!
Warren said she would decriminalize illegal immigration which is to say it would no longer be a criminal offense.
That does not make it legal.
It remains a civil offense. And people can go to jail for a civil offense.
And they are still illegal and processed.
I saw one figure that today, we process 60% of illegal immigration as a civil infraction already.
And Canada uses the same method, a civil offense not a criminal offense.
Canada does not have open borders.
But saying Warren and others want open borders works for Fox News.
2
I'm sorry to see that Mr. Edsall has gone completely off the rails. The backlash he speaks of must have been conjured up in a fever dream.
All the evidence - actual evidence, not opinion - says that Elizabeth Warren would defeat Trump by a large margin.
Further, the idea that Warren is "extremist" is nonsense. Her proposals enjoy wide support in the electorate.
Perhaps Mr. Edsall has spent too much time listening to the worries of billionaries.
3
Elizabeth Warren will make mincemeat out of Donald Trump in a debate. All of the world will witness it. The incumbent knows how a debate will come out, so he'll refuse to participate, and the whole world will see him for the coward he has always been.
2
Edsall and his ilk are the core of the Protect the Wealthy corps. And most Dems will follow them even though it is not in their own best interests.
2
I speak on behalf of all millennials when I say "Ok, Boomer."
2
@Michael
Boomers....the people who sacrificed to pay for your food, shelter, clothing, education, and all the necessities of life when they could have been doing something more productive and enjoyable with their hard-earned money.
You’re welcome.
1
Gen X and Z too.
We are moving backward at the speed of light so any plan and forward looking solutions are suddenly far left and crazy? So we stick with Putin's pawns, the GOP, in an effort to weaken democracy, NATO, and the West? Right now medical payments seem to be linked to gofundme sights while these economists minimize the self-perception of citizens as living in a "failing state" with a 1% obliterating any whiff of representative democracy.
3
Interesting that so many commentators, pundits, and even Democratic party leaders seem to think that the Democratic party should become the moderate wing of the Republican party (that is if anyone believes the Republican party still exists).
2
Andrew Yang is the one with the 'actual' grassroot reach (without the help of MSM). People at the grassroot level connect to him whenever they are given chance to hear him out. He is even-keeled and consistent in his message from the beginning, for them Yang has integrity. He's likely Democrat's best chance to beat Trump. Juxtaposing Yang to Trump, Yang's appeal to Trump voters is there. Yang is the one.
1
With the exception of leaders like Ted Kennedy and Tip O'Neil, the DNC and our Democrat presidents have been more effective followers than leaders.
Clinton moved the agenda toward the G.O.P. in order get Republican votes, and he succeeded in generally following Reagan's beliefs about the role of government.
Clinton's success led to the G.O.P.'s welcoming record numbers of wing nuts, who, up until then, did not affect many elections. Most of the libertarian-inclined folks believed the DNC and the G.O.P. were indistinguishable, so the G.O.P. had to reach out to folks who generally did not vote (radical right; radical religious, etc.), because the Democrats have always out-numbered the Republicans. (credit Karl Rove).
If you fairly described the domestic and foreign policies of the Obama administration: economic recovery; increased domestic energy production; no major changes in our foreign military endeavors; improving private health insurance options (patterned after Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan) without attributing those successes to a given time or administration, most people would think they were traditional Republican values.
Today, both Roosevelts would be considered too radical. Yet, both of them are more responsible than any other presidents for creating the most powerful nation in history.
Amazing, isn't it, that both Roosevelts helped get the less fortunate a better deal from the wealthy, and they did not ruin the United States.
2
Mr. Edsall, are you for or against a national healthcare system paid for by fair taxes on the populace, insuring every American birth to grave, as Elizabeth Warren's plan will do? If not why not? And do you have an alternative plan to offer? Do you want Elizabeth Warren to change her plan, and in effect, continue with our dysfunctional health care system which lets millions uninsured and without care? Why vote for someone, or elect someone who will say and do anything to get elected, (Donald Trump as Exhibit #1.) whereby negating the policies that we want? I am voting for Elizabeth Warren because she has a written plan which is doable if Americans would work for it and not against it. If that makes her unelectable in 2020 or helps Trump - I'll vote for her again in 2024, when we will really need her ideas and great leadership.
7
@Time - Space
Don't shoot the messenger.
I am surprised that almost no one talks about the radically larger federal bureaucracy that would happen with a Warren presidency. I recently was kicked off of Medicare because I refused to pay ludicrous incorrect (over $1,000 per month) premiums to Medicare. On one conversation with our local Social Security/Medicare person, she said she could find the information I was looking for but since it would require "going through 20 screens" she wasn't going to do it. The customer service I received when I was a member of the Tufts health care network was vastly superior to my experiences with the Medicare folks.
Let's have good private systems, both for-profit and non-for-profit, compete head-to-head with a public option and gather good data on the results. Big government solutions are not necessarily superior to the best private sector solutions.
1
@RayU,
I currently have Medicare after paying into the system for 45 years, since the start of Medicare, I suspect my monthly fees will skyrocket if MFO is instituted and I have supplemental insurance as well.
2
You think the same thing doesn’t happen with private insurance? Obviously you have never tried to deal with a private insurance company. I used to get dropped by my insurance every single month because of a stupid mistake that they could not get out of their systems. This happened at a time I really needed care. Every single month I had to fight for hours on the phone for the benefits I was paying for. They are no better at all!
1
We can only hold one Election 2020. There will be a result; either the Democratic Party's nominee will win or will lose. We can second-guess the nominee all we like but it doesn't matter. There's no empirically provable 'right answer.'
The primary process is to determine who should be that nominee. We do it by popular vote, rather than by party bosses in smoke-filled back rooms. Popular vote winners tend to be the most charismatic candidate, but aren't always. Sometimes people vote for a candidate out of fear that their preferred candidate will blow the general election. For example, black people didn't support Obama until he showed them that white people would vote for him.
My advice: trust the process on don't be driven by fear. The winning general election candidate will have to rely on personal charisma to get voters to the polls. So vote for the candidate who you find most appealing. And then vote in November 2020 for the Democratic nominee.
3
The real problem is that the US, like it or not, is politically dominated by a minority of voters consisting of ultra right wingers due to the grossly biased structure of the the Senate (11% of the population, overwhelmingly right wingers, control the 40 or more votes in the Senate that can block anything from passing) and the grossly biased Electoral College that allows a few ultra right wing counties (yes, counties, not even entire states) to swing elections to the right wing.
Due to this bias the US will NEVER vote in a true liberal. Clinton and Obama were clear middle -right conservative candidates. The only reason they, and the current candidates, seem "liberal" is because the Repubs have gone so far to the ultra right wing fringe that they cannot even comprehend what "middle" is anymore.
And the so-called "independents" or "undecided", those who can't seem to make up their mind between the corrupt right wingers liars and the normal, honest people in the Democratic party, vote mainly for whoever tells the scariest story to them as they walk into the voting booth.
Obviously no normal, honest person is going to vote for the corrupt repubs, and no corrupt repub is going to vote for an honest person.
Therefore, the only people in play are the wishy-washy "independent undecideds" and, lets face it, no one knows what they will do until they do it.
2
Ever since Clinton the Democratic Party has decided if you can’t beat them join them, that is swing rightwards as if it were Reagan’s policy that were the lure for the electorate rather than his sunny disposition and dog-whistles on race. What this also represented was a turn towards financial industry, the consultant class and economic elites with a thin veneer of social liberalism, but not too much, which gave us don’t ask, don’t tell, the crime bill, welfare reform. For all the boundaries broken by Obama’s election, he governed much in the Clintonian mode. This is what Edsall is still selling, failing to recognize that these policies were a disaster for the poor, the watching poor, who are attracted by Trump’s economic populism. The old Dems also failed to deal with the legacy of white supremacy in the US, distancing themselves from their base in the Sister Souljah, Reverend Wright episodes, signaling the Southern strategy would get no resistance from them in a general. Economist Thomas Piketty talks about these not so new Brahmins of the left in his upcoming book and how failing to address inequality left a vacuum for Trump to fill with resentments based both on class and race. Sanders and Warren are the antidote to this sorry era, and Edsall is desperate to scare us back into the cage of the past by playing on our fears. For him, the past was fine. But for others left behind it was not. We don’t need a Clintonian Restoration. We need a better future.
4
Do bad human and civil rights are considered a radical leftist paradigm. Equality of rights, income and wealth should not be considered radical - this is how far to the right we have become since Reagan and trump's tax cut for corporation who now get a refund instead of paying their billions in taxes just accelerated the power of the 1% against the rest of America.
As long as billionaires own the media - fox and sinclair broadcasting most America will keep these destructive forces in power.
I am counting on Warren to get the truth out.
2
The primaries are not showcases for Democrats to show how wonderful they are. They are about choosing the candidate who can win an election in order that Democrats can wield legislative and administrative power. Period.
I enthusiastically support Warren. But the cold reality is that she is not even close to putting enough points on the board in the states that will decide this election, and her nomination would result in Trump's reelection.
So I will welcome and back any candidate - including billionaire stop-and-frisk mayors and befuddled ex-Veeps- who seems to be able to get the job done.
2
If one is wondering whether or not an extremist candidate can win a general election, one has to look no further than our current president.
2
Elizabeth Warren or as I affectionately know her as Pochantas has been forthright, consistant and courageous for years. As other candidates dance around like Fred Astaire, Warren lays out our shrinking options with respect to health care, retirement, the cost of education, environmental destruction, financial greed and lawlessness, and government corruption. None of these issues are new. President Carter, Al Gore, Barack Obama and many others have tried to attack these issues with "incremental" change. They were ignored and undermined in most respects as the conservative pendulum continued to swing in the wrong direction. Ignoring these issues is NOT conservative. It is simply venal and self serving. With this administration venality and self serving corruption has reached a cresendo while the issues tearing at our world and our form of government continue to wreak havoc.
The time for incremental change has passed. We now need someone with the honesty and courage needed to save us. That person is Elizabeth Warren.
3
@Julie,
Pocahontas,aka, Rebecca Wolfe, was my ancestress; she was not willing to destroy the English colony; she conformed to the British common law; these Democrats want to make USA into Venezuela or Iran or else you are ridiculed and hunted down.
1
1. 60% of the country wants to vote against Trump.
2. According to Wikipedia, a max of 26% of US supports progressive ideology.
3. Getting rid of Trump requires more moderates than progressives.
4. If Warren is the nominee, moderates voting for her will be inclined to balance out their vote by supporting more conservative Representatives and Senators than they otherwise would.
2
Of the leading Democratic contenders (Biden,Buttegieg,Sanders and Warren), every rational person, including the candidates knows full well that Sanders' and Warrern's plans to restructure healthcare and tax codes will never be enacted because these require Congressional approval.
Instead of these two well meaning but unrealistic candidates ginning up false hopes amongst their true-believers, they should either acknowledge their false promises OR step aside and lend support to the single candidate that polls with margin of error of 1% (versus 3% typical) find the strongest candidate to defeat Trump and also bring in a super majority in the Senate. Their failure to do so would demonstrate the same arrogance and self-delusion they attack Trump-Pence about.
4
@Jim
It appears that many don’t understand how executive branch agencies work. People like me prefer Warren and Sanders because we want adequate enforcement by regulatory agencies of existing law. Aside from changes to the Internal Revenue Code, I’m not looking for new legislation. The type of people who would lead regulatory agencies would differ depending on whether we have a more progressive or moderate President. Therefore, there is no need for the progressives to step aside.
4
I just donated via ActBlue to Elizabeth Warren's campaign, as I did on Saturday after reading Roger Cohen's anti-Warren column, as I did after reading anti-Warren columns by other Times Op-Ed columnists. Rather than get angry, I just keep sending Elizabeth money every time I see these stories. I have nothing else to comment because talk is cheap. I support my views with money. Biden is fourth in money now, so a lot of people who are big talkers are not big supporters.
8
@Richard Grayson
I particularly agree with your last sentence. Many people spend a lot of time complaining about what they don’t like. They do nothing to advocate for what they do like.
3
The American people don't want an extremist like Warren. If the Democrats put her forward as their candidate, the electorate will side with Donald Trump, who has reasonable solutions for everyday problems. Like putting babies in cages and giving the green-light for our allies to be ethnically cleansed.
This idea that Senator Warren would be the extremist in the 2020 election is perverse. If having to pay payroll taxes on income over $250k so we can put our healthcare system on par with the rest of the industrialized world is considered extreme by the electorate, but using our military like a mercenary force to protect Saudi oil isn't, then this country deserves to sink into the ocean.
I don't care which Democrat gets the nomination. I would vote for a dog with a mouth full of lit firecrackers before I voted for Donald Trump. But let's stop calling the Democrats extremists please. Even Bernie Sanders is moderate compared to the Alex Jonesian Republican party using the institutions of government to inject conspiracy theories into the American bloodstream.
4
Elizabeth Warren is a Hillary Clinton impersonator, and will certainly lose to Trump. And she will, without a doubt, drag down other Democrats.
Why? Because, like Clinton, she is all about loading her plans onto the American People. That's not, how the kind of politicians who win elections, operate.
The issue isn't whether her plans are better or worse than Trump's plans (In fact, almost anything would be better) - it's all about the presentation.
In 2016, I recall many people telling me, they would vote for Trump, just to be sure they wouldn't have to listen to Clinton on the news, every day, for 4 years. Basically, that is Warren's problem as well.
In rural America, most people don't want to to be screamed at by an old woman, dressed as Zorro, waving her arms around over her shoulders. That's just the way it is.
And, of course, when you always manage, in some way, to tell the people whose vote you need, that they are inferior, it is "game over".
I'm sure, that some people who read this, will want to accuse me of being both a misogynist, and an ageist. In response to that, I will point out, that the old man, Bernie Sanders, can present the same ideas without offending people. And the young woman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is a genius at communicating with people.
Let's not repeat the mistake we made in 2016.
4
All these complicated arguments against Democrats, against change, based on how things are fine as they are and the system works, even as the have-it-all party run by the richest people in the world have to lie, trick, corrupt, cheat, etc to keep it all running.
The free market is not to be tampered with, except that it is not working, and inequality is both out of control and not being fixed on its own, nor are the problems caused by it like usurious rents and low salaries being fixed by it in the least.
No one in the US should be voting for Trump, and for someone to vote for Trump is a tacit admission of criminality or support for a criminal state.
20
Why does’t this article start from the statement and premise that Elizabeth Warren is “a capitalist to my bones”? Inequality has been exacerbated by business friendly policies and tax benefits tilted toward the wealthy. Warren wants a capitalist system that works for everyone and she isn’t afraid to call out the need for redistribution to be part of the solution. Fight corruption and its corrosive role in our democracy. Ensure everyone has the right to vote. Create fair districts free from political party gerrymandering. Enhance opportunity through proper funding of education and child care. Climate change is real and requires thoughtful policy and incentives to address. Recognize that her plan to achieve universal health care is bold and she is smart enough to see it will require step wise achievement. As journalists and opinion writers you have the ability to shape public opinion. Warren is the best candidate with the street cred (CFPB) and visceral knowledge of the flaws in our tax and financial systems. Focus on the value she ADDS, not the cost you FEAR she could subtract. Warren 2020.
145
It's seems so coincidental that even though she has strong support, so many "establishment types" nowadays are telling us all the reasons she is unelectable. It's usually, well off, white men.
No one comes out and says, it's because she's a scary woman, looking to shake up my status quo, so they find other ways to dismiss her.
Another reason to vote for a qualified woman this time. It's actually past time. We need to get past our firsts, so that petty, miserable argument is finally laid to rest.
She's smart, informed, articulate and motivated not just by a desire to be President, but to help the majority of Americans who struggle everyday. Nothing like our current President, but I'm sure that you mentioned that in your column toting "The Danger of Donald Trump." Didn't you?
12
Elizabeth Warren supports universal, lower-cost healthcare, something supported by a large majority of Americans. Elizabeth Warren supports higher taxes on the super wealthy, something supported by a large majority of Americans. Elizabeth Warren supports stronger protections (regulations) to help consumers and workers, something supported by a large majority of Americans. Elizabeth Warren supports strengthening Social Security (as opposed to gutting it), something supported by a large majority of Americans. Elizabeth Warren wants real action to address Climate Change, something supported by a large majority of Americans. Elizabeth Warren supports sensible gun safety measures, something supported by a large majority of Americans.
I understand that many of Warren's policies make wealthy older white men frightened because her policies would mean their almost total hold on power might weaken just a bit. But a majority of Americans support most of her ideas. I will vote for whichever Democrat is nominated, because the Republican Party really IS extreme (and dangerous, and corrupt, and, after watching all of the impeachment hearings, I'd also say traitorous), but I'll be voting for Warren as the nominee because she's smart, she's thoughtful, she has a track record of pragmatically getting things accomplished, and she's willing to fight for a better America for EVERYONE.
132
@AMinNC "A large majority" DOES NOT MATTER. It's the electoral college that does. WHY are we still not learning this??
1
I know that I am not the average commenter on articles in the New York Times. But I am much more the average voter, in my case formerly registered as a Republican, now independent. In my own insufficiently humble opinion, I am moderate, sensible, reasonable, and want a government that provides order, a common defense, and basic services to actual citizens to prevent actual destitution, but which does not oppress me with its own ideological version of social justice. Trump appalls me for many reasons, chief among them his character. In these feelings, I have lots of company.
Start with that!
Two quotations from this article resonate with me. The progressive readers of the New York Times need to read and reread them, and think carefully about the consequences of demanding that their minority position rule, rather than some compromise with the majority who think otherwise.
Here they are:
"The Warren program, Summers wrote by email, “dwarfs the errors, economic and political, of George McGovern.”
"The worst case scenario, Wasserman argued, “would be to have Elizabeth Warren at the top of ticket with a plausible chance to win.” He argued that swing voters worried about a Warren presidency would vote in support of a Republican Congress to act as a check on her."
That sums it up for a lot of people, maybe most of them.
Democrats, please, please give me someone for whom I can vote!
13
@D I Shaw
With all due respect (and I mean that), instead of lobbying the Democrats, I suggest you start lobbying your former party. There is no reason the Democrats should promote a candidate that appeals to Republicans. It is (or it was) your party. Work on it! And I'll work on mine.
31
@D I Shaw No matter who, just vote blue.
3
Could The Times explain to Times readers why they believe we Democrats need to be lectured to by conservatives on who we need to support, what our values need to be, and why we must abandon our principles and follow them?
I for one am fed up with The Times' giving space to these conservatives who condescend to instruct us. Better that they turn to their own poisonous followers and heal the conservative movement.
We will not be turned away from our values or our objectives. Period.
10
How dare you disparage Ms. Warren. She is the best hope for America. With her running President Trump will carry 49 states. What can be better for America? Why I may even contribute to her campaign.
10
So this article's point is that we must appeal to a small percentage of independent voters in order to win. I disagree.
How many current Democrats will vote Trump for a Warren type candidate? Not that many. How many Republicans will vote for a progressive Democrat? None. How many Republicans would vote for a centrist Democrat? Almost none.
So what we have is stagnation of voters on both sides... Now to the independents. These votes will be spilt every way possible. Of the movable voters to a Democratic candidate is very small percentage of the independants.
Therefore why pick a centrists Democrat? We shouldn't
9
Tired of the nay sayers? When Edsall uses references from people such as Larry Summers, I lose interest. Mr. Summers was one of the hierarchy who ignored intelligent women such as Brooksley Born in PBS's Frontline story "The Warning". This documented the collapse of big banks in 2008. Mr. Summers also claimed women had "issues of intrinsic aptitude." when it came to science. Why doesn't Mr. Edsall ask Brooksley instead of a misogynist, such as Mr. Summers? I hope his opinion goes the way the Edsel car, no where. Elizabeth Warren identifies problems and offers solutions, unlike the republicans who voted 71 times to take away all healthcare. Guess who I am voting for?
12
Hillary lost because of tarnished equity due to several political controversies (however true or untrue they were) and because her close (yet non transparent) relationship with wall st. Why she lost had nothing to do with policy.
And despite those controversies, she still almost won.
I'm not saying she was a great candidate, just that policy did not determine the 2016 election, and neither will it in 2020.
1
These push polls that first paint Warren as a radical to make voters uncomfortable reflect a cynical attempt by the Democratic elite to undermine all progressive candidates and policies. The Democratic party is run by millionaires who sleep better at night thinking they are the nice guys. They somehow manage to support tax cuts for the rich (as a "compromise"). They like charter schools (where they can make money) over funding all public schools. They lament student debt and cost of living problems but favour band-aids over action. They repeatedly fail the 99% by stalling on policies until they are a proven vote winner (like Obamacare). They run the party but they don't know what leadership is.
Warren's ideas are all about fixing inequality and giving the majority of Americans a break. The "radical" idea here is to bring inequality and opportunity back to what it was in the 60's when the boomers were kids. All Warren has to do is phrase it that way -- the populist way -- and then even the suburban ditherers will get on board.
Trumps' only substantive policy is tax cuts for the rich. However, he clothed it all in populist rhetoric and won. Against his lies, actual populist policies will win.
7
Here we go. Another person with all the right characteristics to be comfortable the way thing are now telling us that whatever we do, we mustn't nominate someone who actually will appeal to and do something for ordinary Democrats. The main Democratic constituencies have got to perform their assigned role: step back, smile a little, and vote for the assigned white male savior, who will do, basically, not much. We don't need another Bill Clinton (I'm speaking of policy; this even leaving out his bad personal behavior). Even Barack Obama, who personally is honorable, was really afraid to do much (though thank you for the ACA, which certainly is better than not having it), and who still gets nervous at the thought of true change, as his current comments show. If we want to reverse decades of ordinary people being marginalized, we need someone different who will try to do different things.
9
Thank you again Mr. Edsall for another citation rich essay designed to hide your own centrist brand of conservatism. I long ago suspected you consistently sought to disguise the fact that you are, down deep, not a progressive at all; and advocate the same pandering to the Right that has led to the moral and electoral demise of Democrats ever since the Reagan years, but exemplified best by the Clinton administrations. Are you really the champion of the working class you pretend to be? Do you really think the center can hold the day in a country polarized by extreme economic inequality and a GOP out to undermine democracy? What size Biden or Hillary 2020 tee shirt would you prefer?
9
Edsall's piece is spot on - I campaigned for and donated to suburban, moderate Democratic candidates in Illinois in the last election who flipped Republican seats by small percentages. If Warren is nominated, there will a giant albatross around necks of these candidates - the Democrats may not lose the House in 2020 but almost assuredly will in 2022.
As noted, Warren needs to prioritize her taxing and her spending - moderate Democrats, Independents and liberal Republicans - the middle of the electorate - will go along with some of the proposals, just not all of them. And people need all of the money will be wisely spent - that's going to be a tough sell for Warren.
3
There is nothing 'extreme' or 'radical' in Warren's platform. Most of her objectives have been successfully implemented by most modern countries. It's high time that the US move forward into the future rather than cling to the conservative 'status quo' in which so many of these pundits feel comfortable. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained!"
13
"a time of crisis". Senator Warren's observation is very correct. But not for the reasons she claims.
High deficits and increasing debt are doable for short term reasons. Say a war, depression, large acquisition of territory are examples.
But that does not explain the out of control spending for past decades. That can only be explain in terms of financial possibilities. The USD has been the undisputed global benchmark currency for decades. And when a currency is in that position it's far easier to issue unsecured debt. Once politicians, from both sides of the aisle, discovered they could buy votes this way the flood gates were opened. Sure, some in the Republican party paid some lip service the to problem of debt. But that's all gone by the wayside in the last decade.
What the Senator is proposing is so far out there she may, as this article implies, give President Trump, or who ever runs as a Republican a big boost. Her failure in logic, between what she wants to do and how it'll get paid for, is evident for all to see. Well, other than the most fervent acolytes.
A new problem with Warren with regard to health care is now she is trying to have it both ways, being on the side of both incremental change and big drastic change. I would respect here more if she came down on one side or the other rather than trying to please both the center-left and the progressives with her two-step health care plan. At least with Sanders we know he is not simply playing political games like Warren but is stating what he believes, a political revolution that will include Medicare for all and no private insurance. That might be a general election loser but it is an honest authentic statement of his beliefs and people can vote for him or not. My guess is Warren will begin to slide in the polls as she backtracks from progressive policies and Sanders will overtake her but in the end Democratic voters will chose a moderate candidate because they believe both Warren and Sanders are too far left to win in the general election.
Calling Warren radical is extremist. Using incendiary language like this is just a shade more muted than the exaggerations from Fox News. And again, Edsall ignores the youth vote, which is more motivated now because of climate and guns.
Why has the word "liberal" gone so far out of fashion? To scare people. A lot of us are more concerned about maintaining the status quo.
Many older voters seem to be more afraid of change than their younger counterparts. Much of the MSM parrots this outdated view. Bernie has been consistent in his arguments over many years, and Warren has developed her ideas over a long period, moving slowly but steadily into the liberal court as she has seen that centrist policies have only worsened inequality, and increased danger from climate change.
11
I'm fed up with timidity and caution in the face of racism, inequity, poverty, unaffordable health care and education and a corrupt government. Whatever happened to America the brave? What is so threatening about facing our problems squarely and dealing with them fairly and sensibly? Every criticism of Warren and Sanders boils down to "too much too fast," as if we can continue to muddle through in the face of crises like climate change. Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work.
10
Imagine if all the brainpower applied to justifying and manipulating the Electoral College could be used for something else.
10
If Elizabeth Warren were elected President by popular vote, it would accomplish two things, it would get testosterone out of the WH and show that a woman can be elected President!
7
As a strong supporter of Warren, I share the concerns about her seemingly unyielding push on so many fronts simultaneously - but think that the debate on single payer could be reframed without having to swallow the line that most people are happy with their healthcare.
The burden of healthcare on the private sector is becoming too big for working and middle class workers to bear. This is the reality.
The truth about healthcare reform is that if we want to avoid rationing care by income class we won't be able to do it unless we have a more progressive way of paying for it. And if we want to keep it affordable while expanding it to everyone we won't be able to do it without extensive gov't regulation of pricing and services - as is done in EVERY other country with universal healthcare.
Democrats should absolutely not concede on this point - that private sector healthcare has been changing in ways the public doesn't like for decades, and that the private sector solutions favored by Republicans are to ration care by income class. Price transparency does not necessarily lower prices for products that are in high demand. It frequently signals to people what they can and can't afford.
4
This is a great column from Edsall that hopefully will serve as a dash of cold water for some of the Democrats sprinting to the left with Warren. It also brought out some predictably misguided responses from members of the left wing of the Democratic party.
A few quick points:
1. The left likes to point to failures of *alleged* moderates in Democratic party (e.g., Hillary '16) to justify nominating a left wing candidate like Warren.
2. In reality, both the unsuccessful nominees like Hillary and the successful cases like Obama are *somewhat* liberal.
3. The modern Democratic party has consistently nominated somewhat liberal individuals, as they bridge the gap between the left and moderate wings of the party and are fairly close to the median voter in the general election.
4. In any case, these comparisons are really meaningless without supplying the counterfactual: where are the actual left wing Democrats who are succeeding in presidential elections? If FDR is your answer, you better be willing to wait for the next once-in-250+years-of-US-history catastrophic economic collapse like the Great Depression.
5. The evidence we do have from congressional elections, which Edsall links to, shows that more moderate candidates tend to do better BECAUSE of turnout (contrary to what Warren's supporters like to say).
118
@Edward Swing,
You deserve 5 stars for your reasoned argument.
19
@Edward Swing
The question remains - how are we going to change what the public considers rational/normal if we refuse to make the case for it?
The idea that the determination of what is reasonable and what is extreme by the public is arrived at via some organic process - and not as the result of a concerted effort to persuade or manipulate - is absurd.
Are we simply going to cede the ground to conservative think tanks, conservative media? Hillary Clinton was mocked when she talked about a "vast right wing conspiracy". But she was right, to the extent that even Republicans who should have known better refused to endorse Clinton - even in the face of a candidate like Trump.
Must we resign ourselves to accepting that current public opinion is a fait accompli? Or should we mobilize to change the perception that progressive proposals are "extreme".
24
@Edward Swing to answer your 4th point, we may have actual left wing Democrats win presidential elections if the DNC wasn't constantly shooting itself in the foot by favoring milquetoast Republican-lite centrists. There is more danger in dismissing Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders than there is in welcoming them as the top-tier contenders they have proven to be. We don't even have four years (let alone 250+) to wait for someone who is going to take real action to address our many national crises, so now is the time to show your support and nominate a Democrat who is actually electable. Hint: it won't be a centrist.
22
Another of NYT’s boring, predictable, daily attempts to push us toward centrism.
Not buying it.
Only a rapid national and global mobilization toward decarbonizing will save us. It’s physics.
I’m campaigning for Bernie and the Green New Deal.
10
This is a time for Democrats to affirm the simple truths: Reform and Enforce the Tax Code, Build on Obamacare, Commit to an Infrastructure Re-Build, Education for All, Immigration Reform as in Dreamers Citizenship, Rebuild Alliances with our Allies, Address Climate Change, Check China and N Korea via the TPP, No More Stupid Wars, Value Decency and Integrity.
For even just one of these good things to be enacted, Dems must win both the House and Senate. And that simply won't happen with Warren or Sanders. A Biden/? or Buttigieg/Abrams ticket could win it all in a heart beat.
4
I don't have an inkling that the bulk of the electorate has the information necessary to make an informed guess as to right left or center. The debate contains scarcely a scintilla of information as to the real debate which is Elizabeth Warren's overarching understand of democracy and the restraints the GOP wishes to place on democracy.
What should be a philosophical debate has become name calling without purpose other than vilifying the opponent.
I am losing hope that America will survive this shouting contest because there is no substance. Canada's and all western democracy would recognize that Warren's proposals are normal parts of our political debates and even the limits the GOP proposes on democracy are essential to our debate.
I hate to use the word metaphysics because first principles is a part of philosophy not political science but if I might suggest it is the metaphysics not words like socialism, capitalism liberalism or conservative that should be subject to the debate.
The American populace is dying of starvation of truth and information. The reason we seem to see visceral hatred rather than real politics is because the discussion is devoid of facts.
If I might suggest an alternative to this fight about nothingness might I suggest the linguistic philosopher Steven Pinker.
1
@Montreal Moe
I don't care for Steve Pinker for one simple reason--he wants everyone to understand that, on the whole, everyone on this planet is far better off, on average, than a century ago so we should all adopt a "don't worry, be happy" philosophy, especially Americans who are doing exceedingly well and shouldn't complain at all.
Simplistic, and I reject it. It's obvious to any and all that, yes, we've made great strides in living standards globally. But, that isn't the point. In this country, if there's even the perception that someone else's life has been advantaged while yours has been disadvantaged, there is some pundit who will point this out to you and foment outrage and hate.
Here, there's more than just perception--the middle class has been gutted. The rich, ruling elite can't understand why a 60 inch LCD TV that costs $200 isn't enough to keep people quiet and happy.
The thing is, once in a while people turn off their TV's and wonder why they feel scared. After a few seconds, they realize it's because they might lose their job or get sick or end up living in a tent city. And nothing Steve Pinker is going to say is going to make them feel better.
2
The Achilles' heal for the Democrats is not healthcare, if introduced incrementally as Warren now proposes; it is not higher taxes for billionaires, though it may lose them a few donors. The Achilles' heal is immigration. In California professional immigrants (mostly Asian in origin) fill our hospital staffs and engineering offices, and blue collar immigrants (mostly Hispanic) do much of our hard physical work. Our economy depends upon them. It makes sense to give them driving licenses and healthcare and education. But this is a harder sell in Iowa or Wisconsin or Michigan. The Democrats have to present a fair plan for immigrants, both those here now and those who want to come, a plan that is not viewed by working-class whites as pandering to the Hispanic vote.
7
@CA
There are over 20 Million illegal aliens residing in this country...and tens of thousands more exploiting our porous borders every month. And you want American taxpayers to subsidize their (and their children’s) healthcare, education, necessities of life while they exploit our public services and flood our economy with cheap labor, driving wages down for blue collar citizens?
Oh please...We can barely take care of our own!
2
@Susanna Yes, I want the Hispanic immigrant who is employed illegally by the Trump-voting dairy farmer in Fresno County to have a legal driving license; I want his kids, probably born here, to get an education so they are not a burden on society; I want him and his family to get health care before their infections spread to me or they end up in the ER at my expense. And I want Congress to plan how to deal with him and the 11 million, not 20 million, like him, with something besides a foolish and unworkable Wall.
1
My ACA "insurance" has become a joke. I'm a cancer survivor, and have been getting weekly phone calls from the hospital, begging me to come in for a second mammogram. But my "insurance" company won't pay for it, because, according to them, one mammogram is enough. My doctors ask me why I'm not getting the tests and care I need. I tell them to call my "insurance" company and let them know how urgent these things are, because I'm done arguing with company employees who simply drone on about the rules made up by company executives who are only interested in their shareholders' profits. We need radical reform more than ever, and those who think the U.S. healthcare system is just fine have either never been seriously ill or have so much money that they don't know what to do with it.
19
If anyone did pay those higher marginal rates in the 60's and 70's, then they should have fired their accountant.
Obama economic adviser Steve Rattner, in response to AOC's advocacy for returning to higher marginal rates, showed in a 1/28/19 NYTs' article that although those rates existed, the wide array of deductions and other off-sets resulted in the actual tax burden for top 1% of earners being slightly under 40% during that period.
3
@NativeBos
You mean the guy who settled a case with the Securities and Exchange Commission? The guy who is afraid of higher taxes and more scrutiny of his business by the SEC?
8
You didn’t address the point about the effective tax rate.
I'm seeing more and more of this and honestly I think the same thing is behind the resistance to Hillary Clinton--Warren is a woman. To me it's clear she has the best chance to change things for the better if people aren't afraid of change. But some of the same people I know who were saying, "It's not that Clinton is a woman, it's that she is Clinton, if Warren were running, I'd be all in," are now finding a way to dismiss her to and anytime a woman becomes a viable candidate there is going to be that kind of push-back through a bunch of different arguments. I'm voting for Warren. I think she is the best candidate.
14
Here we go again: framing FDR democrats as "extremist". What a joke, after 4 decades of radical, extremist right-wing ideology that has infected government and brought us to where we are today.
14
@Stephen Love FDR's New Deal was dependent on the preservation of white supremacy, as described by historian Ira Katznelson in his books "When Affirmative Action was White" 2006, and "Fear Itself", 2014. It was a "progressive era" with a huge asterisk. Progressives today will get no such support. On FDR's solid support in the Deep South, from "Fear Itself":
"Remarkable in his reelection of 1936 was the degree of support he (FDR) secured across the Deep South. Roosevelt's reelection was endorsed by 87% of voters in Alabama, Georgia and Texas, 89% in Louisiana, and an astonishing 97% in Mississippi and 99% in South Carolina, where some counties reported not one Republican vote."
Some of Edsall's comments are realistic assessments of how ignorant many Americans are of universal healthcare, however finding common ground with Republicans is simply not possible today and continuing the status quo is totally unacceptable. Trump and his cronies must go, but some of the Democratic cannot possibly beat Trump and are doing the party a disservice by remaining candidates.
1
@Wm. J McCullough
He is feeding the ignorance of those people to whom you referred. Why would he quote a pundit from MSNBC?
2
In a June 23, 2016 op-ed “How Low Can the G.O.P. Go?” you prognosticated:
“As Donald Trump’s campaign continues to spiral, a crucial question arises: How much collateral damage could he inflict on the Republican Party? If recent patterns in straight-ticket voting hold and Trump’s campaign continues to falter, Trump could carry a host of Republican down-ballot candidates with him to defeat.”
Uh huh.
3
I've had it. I'm tired of getting burned by the feckless, cowardly Democratic party. I'm tired of voting for Democrats only to see them support traditional Republican policy dressed up as Democratic. For instance, In '09-10, Democrats, with unprecedented super majorities, abandoned a Public Option out of fear of being labeled socialist. Democrats then proceeded to adopt subsidies for the purchase of for-profit health insurance, a Republican plan developed by the Heritage Foundation in the 90's. The result? Republicans labeled Democrats socialists anyway, and Democrats were clobbered in the '10 mid-terms. Our health premiums have increased continued +~6% per year well beyond inflation and now cost over $20,000 per year for a family plan.
And sorry, but a "Not Republican" or "Not Trump" candidate is not a good enough reason for me or anyone to vote Democrat.
How about you show some actual fortitude, passion, and courage for a change... go big and bold, instead of waffling and wavering like the weaklings that you are.
9
Oh boy, another old man letting his fear of change show. Take this from an unafraid old lady-get out of the way.
13
The lobby starts to spit it’s vile poison against the big structural change candidates. This is expected. I hope Americans will see through this.
9
I was open to voting D .......but.........
Trump's high unpopularity ratings have given the Democrats false hope to advocate for insane policy platforms. Every Democrat wants to give free health care to illegal aliens and open the borders in some manner, in a country that hosts between 23-50 million illegal aliens (Yale study). This is totally insane, and most Americans seethe at the idea.
I paid off my student loans by working and saving. It took 7 years, but I did it. There are tens of millions of voters who did the same, and you want us to give every student loan debtor a jubilee? Ha. Don't think so.
Sorry Dems. I am registered Independent, but you all lose me. And we are now 45% of the electorate. Good article by the way, Edsall.
6
@EH
Real independents aren't 45% of the electorate. Most vote/align very very consistently blue or red. Why not just register with the corrcet party then? Not sure, maybe so they can feel important getting courted/write threatening comments along the lines of --"cater to me or else."
1
@EH,
I became an Independent 2 years ago for the very reasons you expressed; I was a Democrat for 50 years until the ultra liberals ran me out from MY PARTY, the party of JFK, RFK and LBJ., no more will I vote Democrat because the party of California ultraliberals has usurped our Democracy.
These are very important considerations for me. I am a California progressive convinced as many of us are that swing state voters only hurt themselves (or their neighbors if they have investments) by not voting for some kind of a "new deal".
Yet I don't want a large federal bureaucracy running all these new proposals. I think it was an error with the Great Society as well.
Warren and Sanders can reach the swing voters by turning up the messaging on two things: decentralization and a united nation.
One, emphasize that federal mandates will defer to states and localities to implement them. They can even thank small government conservatives for this idea. Second, present system change as inevitable, and the only question is how to design it with all Americans on board. Invite Republicans, continuously and weekly, to the table to discuss them. This messaging creates a sense of momentum. The angrier the opposition gets and the more they are accused of hypocrisy or lying, they more we present a language of inclusion and inevitability....and decentralization!
Swing state voters need to know that they are listened to. I know this burns us whenever we read of their resentment or racism, but in every heart burns a need for decent, caring leaders who listen to everyone, and that is the leader who will win.
1
Quotes Larry Summers who architected wealth transfer from the taxpayers to the banks & brokerages during the financial crisis, an enemy of the state - like referencing the Kochs and saying they have the interests of the people in mind.
9
@Ed Ashland: One cannot even get academic economists to admit that monetary policy and fiscal policy are independent variables that cannot be condensed to a single interest rate variable that purports to maintain both stable prices and stable employment. The Congress expects the Federal Reserve Bank to do the impossible with its "dual mandate".
@Ed Ashland
Well, he also quoted Krystal Ball. I mean, that must be worth something, right?
1
She has already chased away any one slightly to the right of Mother Theresa, and her acolytes have been demonizing anyone from center left to bright red, further dividing this country.
When pressured for an answer on how to pay for all these free things she will give, she came up with a plan so far fetched it is laughable.
When experts waded in, proving analysis that shows her costs predictions are way below what it would actually reality would be, her acolytes again came out swinging in defense of her, attacking any expert, lawyer, professor who called her bluff.
I cannot see how any one with a working brain could take her seriously.
And she plans to have all this in place in 3 years, against a divided congress, a GOP Senate and SCOTUS.
Soon as her first term is over, and she has failed to deliver a single promise, the pendulum will swing red and the Congress will go to the GOP. Then good luck convincing a red senate and congress to pass a deep blue piece of pie in the sky.
1
@AutumnLeaf
Pie in the sky is thinking that anyone is going to unite the country given the way Republicans in Congress have treated the last two Democratic Presidents. Do you recall Merrick Garland? Anyone who believes that the current political animosity will end when Trump is gone is engaging in magical thinking.
4
Many moderate voters from both parties really don’t know what they want. They just criticize any politician who takes a strong stand on any issue that requires changing current policy. They don’t get involved and advocate for any policies that would correct a problem. If we continue to approach governance in this way, the national debt will continue to increase, the wealthiest corporations and individuals will continue to gain influence over everyone else, and no action will be taken on climate change. The moderates will be comfortable, though, and that’s most important. Don’t make them uncomfortable.
7
Edsall's op-eds are some of the densest and most laborious reads to be found in the Times' Op-ed section, but I remain super grateful at the thoroughness of his research and the methodical way he substantiates his arguments. Even if I disagreed with a baseline premise, he leaves so many breadcrumbs it's easy to follow his thinking and understand how he got there in good faith. Bravo. Carry on.
2
The voters will decide how dangerous Elizabeth Warren is first in the primaries and if she is lucky to get the nomination in the general election. I think we will then see that she is truly frightening. President Trump will win easily in 2020 against Ms. Warren and any other candidate who is his challenger.
1
While the polls referred to in Edsall's column sound disappointing, they don't mean much preceding the lack of an actual campaign between the Democratic primary winner and Trump. People may say they want a more moderate candidate, but when Warren states her positions during the final campaign, the one everyone will actually be paying attention to, will they think her proposals are too radical? Or will they appreciate their aspirational quality?
Clinton's campaign lacked aspiration, in the sense she wanted to maintain the status quo as established under Obama. And that lack of aspiration made for an unexciting campaign.
3
The US needs to do something drastic to repair our system of inequality. Part of that is healthcare which does not work. Hospitals are going after patients with enormous bills even when they have insurance. Prescription prices are too high. I paid $150 in a copay with supposedly good insurance for a generic drug. I believe that citizens are ready for change. Elizabeth Warren May not have the perfect plan but it can be worked on to benefit all. Why should the US be the only industrialized country to fail people seeking medical care?
3
Your storyline is correct. But is mealymouthed Joe Biden and not Warren who will get Trump reelected and lose the Senate.
6
Just stop it! Stop the scare tactics. We know what the corporate media is up to. It is The New York Times that loses credibility with this kind of "opinion" piece, not Elizabeth Warren. There is going to be change no matter who becomes the next President. Stop the fear mongering the future when real progress is at hand.
11
"The Danger" of Warren is her lack of character.
She falsely claimed to be Native American to advance her own professional and political careers at the expense of others.
If she had falsely claimed to be African American, she would have immediately been disqualified as a candidate for the Presidency and made history for her dishonesty.
2
#Sad, #Weak, #Pathetic - is how I imagine Trump critiquing this Democratic primary process, where everyone is afraid to stand for anything, and equally willing to cave on anything - all for fear of him.
1
Elizabeth Warren is our pollyanna progressive. For those of you unfamiliar with the definition of pollyanna, it means Blindly Optimistic. Ugh.
3
Wow, I can't believe that NYT is going to now be flooded with editorials about how terrible the democratic front runner is, and telling us why we should not vote for someone who is campaigning on legitimate change.
Once again the NYT will tell us that it's the DEMOCRATS who have to roll out a lame, centrist candidate, because 'extremist' candidates will lose! Funny how the extremist Republican running for re-election doesn't seem to have to worry about this.
Maybe the NYT should do it's job and help explain why Warren's policies will be successful, instead of repeating 2016 and spending all their time tearing down the democratic nominee.
11
Whoo boy! I look at this article and read the commentary & I realize several things:
1) Folks this is an echo chamber. It doesn't speak for or represent even a plurality of the nation People are hearing ONLY what they want to hear.
2) This ISN'T Western Europe! We don't have high social cohesion and trust. And even the European paradise? which so many here boast about has it's problems! Brexit, Yellow Vests, AFD ring any bells?
3) Lastly and the one that will bring out the Lynch Mobs. Progessivism is NO LONGER a political movement it's become a religion. It no longer allows or tolerates questioning of the faith. Anyone who dares question the smallest thing much less the actual viability of progressive policies? Is labeled a heretic or an infidel, Oh excuse I meant pro Trump or really republican. You know what ? When politics becomes a matter of faith it doesn't turn out well historically speaking.
Lastly) Folks do you want to win the election or not? Screaming how everyone who dares question orthodoxy is a republican, Evil, and should be... well never mind! It aint gonna win elections! All it will do? Is to convince people to stay home or vote 3rd party. Politics is a give & take not a all or nothing. The more you make it all or nothing? The more likely people are to vote against you!
3
For the reasons outlined in this piece:
Klobuchar/Buttigieg 2020
2
Keep seeing “Progressives” woken people dreaming they are a majority . Ie 51%. No they/we are not. May well outnumber the Trump forever apologists and the dream of a white 1950s America. ( With low taxes for the rich not the 80% rate of course LOL) They will show and vote Trump. Sweep the South, except Florida and Virginia
The swing vote is the 20% who have solid and good to great hearts. They also are not convinced by an agenda towards sex, religion, immigration that Sanders /warren present.
They probably support DACA, these kids grew up here. But are afraid or perturbed by things like today’s suit against Target? Claiming it’s a crime to label kids clothes by gender. Most probably say, hey kids wear what you want, act civilized and we will figure it out. BUT for us 90% when I go to buy my son or niece a shirt give me the basic idea and I can figure it out. As will all.
If this 20% is not comfortable or breaks away we will have Donnie and Mitches martinettes for 4 more years.
Let’s get a majority that wants to move progressively, communicates and works to reform the crazed flow of money to the rich, and opens new paths for medical care.
Warning folks we will have 4 more years if we aren’t creative, inclusive and not everyone is as “woke” as you.
Awaiting the “ I can’t support lieing cheating and demand we fix the system now!!!”
2
Warren is a gift to anyone seeking a just and intelligent leader. What a breath of fresh air she would bring to the Whitehouse!
8
The danger of Elizabeth Warren is she’s a woman who speaks truth to power. God knows this plutocracy won’t be well served by that! 
8
The top two items under "Opinion" on the NYT webpage today tell us:
"Trump Is Doing Exactly What He Was Elected to Do
Don’t impeach him."
And then warn us of "The Danger of Elizabeth Warren."
Hmmm.
8
I really wish that the NYT editorials would do more to support fighting for what's really in the best interests of all of us instead of being so calculating and fear-mongering like in this essay.
5
@Amala - it's in our best interest to know what is the major important intellectual outlook coming out of the most important city in the world.
Hmmm. Extremist candidates do worse, like Trump? Like the very moderate Hilary? This is an astoundingly flawed argument.
8
Keep Elizabeth Warren in the Senate; we need her vote there. Stop equivocating among the other Democrat hopefuls, none of whom are the right person at the right time, and support Joe Biden, who will return sanity to the White House after crazy Trump and his band of sycophantic gangsters. Make America decent and dependable again.
1
You get paid to say these things so you are just the poor messenger. There is no scientific basis to your statements and inferences. Warren becoming President and the Democrats carrying both Houses is as likely as it is not. So your emphasis shows me your true colors.
Warren or Bernie would be the best President this country ever had. Including FDR. You want to debate that with me? I am ready when you are.
7
Warren voters are the whitest and wealthiest of any voting bloc in the US. The progressive activists have always drawn from this demographic. They are removed from the prosaic problems of the rest of us. This is why she will lose.
1
Yep. Another chicken little, GOP lite, call to elect center right candidates. As if the status quo was great, and we could just do nothing to solve our nation's many problems.
6
Yes, by all means, forget addressing any actual problems, experienced by the majority of citizens, and just find someone...who can work with the Republicans and corporate Dems. That surely is what we the people, stretched to the breaking point by lack of actual affordable healthcare, decimated public education, low wages, and high housing costs need.
5
We have had enough of 'moderate, centrists Republican lite democrats. These extraordinary times call for a dynamic, left center candidate best exemplified in Elizabeth Warren.
8
This article provides overwhelming evidence that Warren cannot win the general election. It will not dissuade her supporters. Other arguments that even if she were somehow to win, her platform would never pass even a Democratic-majority Congress -- even that falls on deaf ears. Her supporters say it's an aspirational program; start by proposing the moon, then negotiate it down. No, if you start with the most extreme ideas you can think of, you don't get to negotiate. You get defeated in November 2020 and you bring the rest of your party down with you. But the left doesn't care.
1
Reading the top recommended comments, I wonder how many who wrote them and liked them have read the analyses of EW's Medicare for All proposal--some analyses from some solid left of center organizations like the Urban Institute. It is sobering, and proponents for change MUST get away from wishful thinking, and must get away from the group think of encouraging, daring, and shaming the rest of us who do not want to jump off that cliff.
What I find discouraging about EW's proposal is that it is funded in large part by a deserved and necessary tax on the uber-wealthy--something I have long considered a "nest egg" that could pay for so many needed government programs ranging from poverty to the environment. EW's plan devotes, it appears, 100% of that "nest egg" to her Medicare for All proposal. That is how monumental it is in terms of the costs. I will not be shamed and baited by my fellow progressives into supporting a DOA proposal.
That EW has fudged on what her proposal will cost, waited so long to talk about the cost, still touts free college for all when all the money is going into Med demonstrates to me her weakness as a candidate--she is not trustworthy. I would be saying the same thing about a man, BTW, and have.
@Jack: The professor doesn't seem to have developed a curriculum to explain the elements of public health economics yet.
1
In 1776 freedom from the British monarchy was a “radical” idea that sparked a revolution that had no chance of success. If Edsall had been around then he surely would have been a Tory, afraid to shake off the abuse of the Crown.
That’s the underlying assumption here: better the abuse and the abusers you know than the candidate who offers hope and escape. Edsall argues like an abused wife, out of fear, when he appeals to middle of the road voters. If you find the “rule” of the Republicans not working for you and not to your liking, VOTE THEM OUT.
8
AsI see it, the only danger about Elizabeth Warren is that she may be a bit ahead of her time, and that's because too many people - Edsall included - SEE her as a danger. I can assure you, come the next recession/depression, people will clamour for an Elizabeth Warren figure, to seize the opportunity that was missed in 2008.
06:25 EDT, 11/20
7
I will take the alleged danger of Elizabeth Warren over the very real danger of Donald Trump.
9
How many seats did Democrats lose from 2008 to 2016 with their civil and pragmatic centralism? It's time for the party to stop being the party of cowards and spreadsheets and embrace bold progressive policies
7
McGovWho? Anyone under 60 wouldn't know that name, and doesn't want another plain-vanilla Boomer as their only choice over the dumpster fire that is the current White House. How about rallying the base, minorities, and the younger vote (see above) to get out and vote?
5
Thanks a lot for another 100% purely unoriginal recycled thought that of the quality so rare it is freely available to people living under bridges in Mexico.
You’re insights have been so useful. Look! Trump! Way to go.
3
Mr. Edsall,
You are just another old white male denigrating a woman who is trying to achieve what old white males seem to have given up on (serving democracy) in the service of maintaining the status quo. The status quo is no good, and has been forced down our throats long enough. If you can't stomach a woman as president, move out of the way.
8
Is it me that's just tired of old white guys who want to keep the status quo going by throwing bricks at politicians like Elizabeth Warren who want to actually help the average American via their policies on healthcare for all, affordable education and equitable taxation?
10
This is why the kids are saying “ok, boomer”.
8
@Kevin Okun
And every advantage those ‘kids’ may have enjoyed in the way of food, shelter, clothing, education, and their beloved smartphones came to them via the hard work, savings, and commitment of their boomer parents.
You’re welcome...
3
Hopefully she will shake up the party. Somebody needs to, even if it means another 4 years. National health insurance and quality child care......and a library card....to support the body, free up the daily routine, and break through the cobwebs...
3
Solving, or at least trying to solve, the country's endemic problems? Perish the thought. What we have now increasingly looks like a dysfunctional banana republic with massive wealth inequality, very little investment in social welfare, dilapidated infrastructure, broken healthcare and a demented gangster sitting in the White House. All these academic prognosticators are right. Who would want to change any of that?
8
So many dire warnings about Elizabeth Warren from the 1% and the 1% of the 1%, now from the NYT and the punditocracy, I'm beginning to suspect she may be right about a few things.
11
Disgraceful! We no longer elect our government. 3 of the last 4 Presidential elections went to the loser, the one with less votes.
Using the myth of real elections as a threat, we are extorted to vote for corporate-approved "centrist" candidates who clearly don't have American's interests at heart. Be brave! vote your conscience!
4
Why are Americans so afraid of someone who cares so passionately for other people?
10
Every time I see an article title like this, with some ominous warning about a progressive candidate, I click on it to see if it's written by a "senior Caucasian male." 100% of the time, it is.
10
The fact is that Democrats can be elected--are elected, in fact, in many cases. Then those victories are taken away by a rigged system. How can Democrats attract white, rural, uneducated voters? Possibly by proposing exactly what Warren proposes but assuring those voters the main beneficiaries will be white people. Who among the white, working class voters we're asked to consider doesn't want healthcare, a more equitable distribution of wealth, access to education? One is left with few viable hypotheses as to why these proposals aren't going down well with people who would benefit.
Warren is at least proposing solutions to real problems. Instead of bemoaning how "radical" these are, what if Edsall pointed out how mainstream they are. Universal healthcare is pretty well accepted in many other rich countries. There have been higher progressive tax rates in the past, enacted by Republican administrations. Edsall is creating and fueling a populist problem.
2
@JP All the Democratic candidates are proposing real solutions to real problems, except for Warren and Sanders. How can you say they offer anything real when you also have to admit that they have no chance of passing nearly everything they propose much less getting elected with such unpopular messaging?
1
And what about the manifold perils of the status quo?
"August, reasoned" opinions like this are what is consigning the US to a bitterly enflamed social purgatory.
The magnitude of Democrats utter failure to protect the working class while also failing to meet the expectations of the educated who grow increasingly cynical about US denial of a safety net while we spend trillions on war, armaments, and massive surveillance/police state is obscenely incomprehensible.
But both Bernie and Elizabeth have added it up, and we for whom they speak know that the Democratic party has only one direction it can go.
That is, there can be no more election to election skirmishes about who's delivering on bread and butter.
The Democrats need to stand for something or die.
2
"Strategically, if Warren wins the Democratic nomination, the election would become not only a referendum on Trump — favorable terrain for Democrats — but also a referendum on Warren’s program, a far less certain proposition."
Yeah. It might also focus on the fact that a progressive laundry list won't make it in the current makeup of Congress. Remember Mitch?
I'm an independent. Whoever gets the nomination gets my vote so we can take the country back from Trump's hired lobbyists before everything's given away.
I know other independent voters (we're 40% of the vote, by the way) who would wince and vote for Warren if it comes to that.
I know others, more on the conservative side, who would wince and instead, vote to re-elect. Those voters just want a Dem they can vote for because they hate Trump. They're not feeling like tossig their employer plan, many are turned off by restoring illegal entry to misdemeanor status, and many don't want to support a huuuuge agenda. They want to be able to vote Donald out.
1
Why does Edsall think that it is safe to run moderates in a time of climate change? The climate scientists are warning us that we have little time left. Young people are rightly concerned about this issue. Therefore, it is crucial that they -- and older voters too -- understand that the Democrats will need to control Congress (not just the White House) in order for us to keep the planet inhabitable. Clever advertising campaigns (think of LBJ vs. Goldwater) could make a difference in helping voters understand. Edsall seems to assume that public opinion cannot be moved much and that candidates have to live with the current attitudes of the voters, but Sanders has already proved him at least partly wrong. Voters will consider unfamiliar ideas if they come from someone who obviously cares about them. My one worry about Warren is that I have seen her speak contemptuously of voters uneasy about gay marriage. I have seen Sanders angry many times, but never contemptuous towards voters.
1
HRC lost not because she was a centrist. She was the opposite of an advocate for the centrist voters. She ignored the rust belt and insulted working people. She pushed centrist voters away with both hands, and lost.
So how do we beat Trump?
We take back those votes that gave him the win. Where are those votes? In the center. That’s where the most votes are up for grabs. Independents and moderates of both parties who voted for Trump. With the right nominee, easy pickings.
1
By the number of Recommends in this section, Democrats are set up for an election rude awakening. Hopefully, this is not representative of the party's primary voters.
1
This op ed is essentially saying the US is doomed, there is no hope of the US becoming an even slightly less barbaric place, that the senate is fatal unrepresentative old baggage of a beta version of democracy, like the electoral college. The US will remain a capitalist free fire zone, a country on the side of a military base.
1
I oppose Trump. I cannot support the Democratic Parties position on immigration (anyone with a pulse and the nerve to break our laws gets to stay and gets free healthcare). I don't want to live in a third world country where life is cheap and everyone is miserable. I'll hold my nose and vote Trump.
2
@Willt26: We're already living in a country where life is cheap (how many children killed by guns again this year?) and people are miserable (talk to anyone who's had to contend with a serious illness and their insurance company simultaneously), so go ahead and vote for the status quo. So what if every other first world country provides affordable healthcare and education for their citizens -- we have more billionaires than everyone else, so I guess that's the statistic that matters to you more than the health and well-being of your fellow citizens.
1
@Willt26 I wish Trump were even tougher on immigration but I would vote for him on that issue alone. And I don't watch/read Fox News, am an atheist, a vegetarian (anti-hunting), pro-abortion, pro-environment/wildlife, anti-guns, anti-war, agree about global warming/climate change (due to human overpopulation). And I also have an M.A. degree. I agree with Mr. Edsall (his are the only op-eds I read). I think that Warren is crazy and she can never win the election against Trump.
2
@Carol I fogot to say that I also read op-eds by Margaret Renkl. In my opinion, Edsall and Renkl are the only writers worth reading in the NYT op-ed section.
2
The nation is currently becoming witness to the unconventional means of diplomacy under President Trump, especially highlighting the contrast between professional state dept. appointees with novice ambassadors like Gordon Sondland and Rudy Giuliani. The difference between advancing American interests abroad with a coherent foreign policy which is carried out by dedicated and invested diplomats. It is important to note that Trump has appointed nearly have of his ambassadorships with wealthy GOP donors to his campaign. According to the Washington Post, Elizabeth Warren is the only candidate of either party to pledge in 2020 to only choose ambassadors for expertise, not financial contributions. This is symptomatic of her ethical courage & willingness to clean up a corrupt & compromised government for the benefit of the citizens not wealthy donors or lobbyists. It this pledge & many others like it, dangerous?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/11/20/united-states-lets-wealthy-donors-like-gordon-sondland-become-ambassadors-not-so-elsewhere/
Have you ever heard of Donald Trump, the most extreme of presidential candidates?
2
Pardon my tone but don't think you can meddle in this election with your divisive fear-mongering and conscienceless partisanship.
And don't apply the word, danger, to a candidate unless she has explosives strapped to her body.
4
Typical, the media is great at selling illegal wars, but god forbid you try to sell universal healthcare to the voters. Attack attack attack Warren is all the rage now. This will only get Trump re-elected.
3
Anyone who refers to Warren as an “extremist candidate” proves just how far the Overton window has shifted to the right....
2
Warren will eliminate it? Warren will cover you? Warren will make sure it’s paid for? Replace “Warren” with “the American taxpayers”. Therein lies the problem. Elizabeth Warren may believe that her plans will be paid for by billionaires. American voters will not take the bait.
1
This type of « supermarket » analysis backed up by one or two out of context abstracts from one or two handpicked studies is scientifically worthless and not up to the editorial quality expected from the New York Times. The pundits got it so wrong in 2016 and have not learned anything.
What Warren does have, and what Sanders has too to a point, and what Trump has too, is sheer volunteer enthusiast. I just don’t think instinctively that a Hillary / Kerry / Obama « moderate » is what will bring back some of the white working class within swing states. What they will do is bring back some of the Wall Street Democrats and if anyone believes the Wall Street wing of the party is what will win back the presidency you are badly mistaken and have understood nothing from 2016.
Shame to the New York Times management team for so blatantly running an anti Warren campaign.
I look at Tomas Edsall and in some ways I see myself. Slowly losing touch with the cutting edge of things. My goodness man if all the country wanted or needed was just more of the samething we have been having for the last 40 years I would think we would see it in the poles, but we do not see that do we? When you left Brown what was your debt load? I'm sure your 401k is doing just fine and your investments are too, but young people these days are looking at the future and not seeing anything like we have Tom. The country does not need gold old uncle Joe and more of the same, we need big changes. Better to get in there and help with it and stand on the sideline crying like Cassandra. We need a person of action and moderates just don't fill the bill.
4
Edsall's simple two-word recipe for doing absolutely nothing important in life: fear failure. Fear losing. Wow. No wonder the Democrats have become Republican lite. I am 60 years old, and even I am becoming sick of this pretense that wisdom lies trying nothing at all, fighting for nothing at all, stepping out on no limb. William Blake was right, "prudence is a rich ugly old maid courted by incapacity."
If the Dems are serious about beating the maniac currently occupying the Oval Office,
They need to steer clear of the radical Warren/Bernie wing of the party.
If one of them wins the nomination, even I might be forced to vote for Trump.
1
Anyone who argues that a "moderate" candidate is safer needs to offer an explanation for why Clinton and Kerry lost against such miserably unpopular opposition, why nominating yet another moderate will work *this time* when it hasn't worked in the past. If you can't explain that, all I see in this article is teeth chattering from a cowardly neoliberal.
2
One problem. Elizabeth Warren is not an extremist.
3
You lost me when you labeled Elizabeth an extremist when its been quite clear for awhile now, that the positions she stands for are squarely in the middle, not withstanding popular media outlets to the contrary. Your analysis is tainted.
4
Fundamental problem facing democrats is simple. You want nice things for the voters, but you also want a nice new pool of voters. You can have one, or the other. Nice things, or unlimited migration. Insist on both you get neither. Choose one and fight for it or die as a party.
1
"Even if she wins the presidency — hardly a sure bet — she may jeopardize Democrats in the House and the Senate."
Baloney.
Democrats, both voters and pundits, need to STOP trying to forecast how other people are going to vote.
Do you like Warren? Do you believe she wants to take the country in a direction it needs to go? Then vote for her. Send her a donation. If you don't like what she has to say, then vote for somebody else. But please, please, please stop trying to tell us that this or that candidate is going to cost us Democrats this or that election. If 2016 showed us anything, it's that you pundits can't predict jack.
4
Anyone who is watching the impeachment hearings now on has rocks in their head if they think that Democrats should "find common ground with Republicans."
Progressives need a junkyard dog, not a lapdog.
2
Trump IS an extremist. And he won. And will probably win again. I don't understand your point.
Thoughtful article - a dose of reality. Remember that an extremely qualified woman ran for presidency and lost to a dispicable clown. And she was a centrist. This is not about gender. It’s about appealing to all citizens across the country. If Warren gets the nomination, Trump will win in a landslide. For a lot of people in this country, socialism is worse than all the horrible things this president has already done. They see socialism as the loss of their freedom.
From one old guy to another, get on board or be left at the station.
4
Extreme? Really? Not taking corporate money and advocating for equality and access to health care is extreme? And you still believe this given the current rise of fascism and anti-democracy that we’re witnessing among the Republican ranks?
1
Free healthcare for anyone that sets foot on US soil, regardless of citizenship status? Gee whiz what could go wrong?
1
Well we wouldnt want to actually do anything substantial in office would we? i suppose we could do school uniforms and bomb small countries
1
Just donated again to Sanders and Warren. Sanders just topped four million donors. Nary a word from the Times. Crickets, as it was in 2016.
This is how the media handles these candidates, either a news blackout or a frontal attack.
Sorry, Times, Post, MSNBC, at al-- not this time around.
3
Nice balance to this article. Very well referenced and laid out. Too bad the author stuck such an inflammatory title on it!
I would rather go down fighting with Warren than elect a middle of the road, neo liberal Democrat who shies away from the fight and doesn't even try to get anything big done.
4
Your columnist likes to cherry pick academic studies that bolster his case and give an aura of scientific objectivity to his right-wing, political point-making. But one becomes skeptical when, in column after column, citing supposedly "objective" studies, he invariably reaches conclusions that are anti-progressive and supportive of the pro corporate, anti Socialist candidates . . . .
1
My God, this piece trots out the same tired, discredited "conventional wisdom" which led the Democratic Party to lose a thousand seats at the state and federal level since Obama's first election, culminating in the 2016 debacle that lost them all three branches of government and two-thirds of the state legislatures, their worst overall showing since 1928!
A four-decade-long process led to that debacle, starting with the Reagan landslide and the Democrats reaction of ditching the New Deal for a Clintonian neoliberalism that accomodated rather than confronted Republican corporatism. The resulting wealth gap has rotted our democracy from within and so polarized the electorate that a President Donald Trump became not just possible, but inevitable.
Trump's win was part of a wave throughout the West that has not yet broken of electorates giving the middle finger to the status quo and the establishment out of frustration with being left behind and only the needs of the wealthy mattering. But centrists cocooned in their MSM bubble actually believe Russia flipped the 2016 election, that Hillary would have won but for Bernie and Jill Stein, and that only Joe Biden can win back Rust Belt blue collar voters. Such willful blindness will re-elect Trump.
Hard data shows that no centrist Democrat can beat Trump, see report of the Democracy Fund's Voter Study Group: https://www.salon.com/2019/06/02/there-is-hard-data-that-shows-that-a-centrist-democrat-would-be-a-losing-candidate/
3
Another attempt, by yet another man, to break a woman down.
Worse of all, Larry Summers, a known misogynist, fired from Harvard for his incendiary remarks about women and their intelligence, is quoted.
If Trump gets re-elected, it will be because of callous people, like you, spreading lies and scare tactics to undermine her candidacy.
Americans want the middle class rebuilt. Warren is the person to do it.
5
The Democrats must focus on winning, period. One of these candidates -- which, if any of them, I do not know -- simply must pull all Democrats into their tent, get the African-American vote, and any independentsthat they can. Its as simple as that. Otherwise there is no hope for the future.
Bernie Sanders has raised more money than any other candidate. Why isn't there one article about him?
2
Someone explain to me why urban liberals are the ones who always have to compromise with the more conservative or centrist factions of the Democrat Party and never the opposite
4
@Ken Harper: three words: the Electoral College.
2
Thank you for this piece. Just sent my check to Warren!
3
I read the column and the comments and conclude that everybody believes their position is too logical and attractive not to carry the day. But, until the primaries are over, it’s all just speculation at a particularly volatile moment in our country’s history. One thing seems reasonably certain: the primaries will discourage at least one significant block of Democrat/independent voters. The challenge is to keep everybody on course at that point, because the greatest danger is voter defection in a Republican gerrymandered, voter suppressed election. Remember The Stones!
You can’t always get what you want,
But, if you try real hard,
You get what you need.
Paralysis by analysis. People apparently get to make a living by guessing about the future. Warren’s vision of a progressive America has been nixed by the punditry before the voters have spoken. If only they had done the same to Reagan, maybe we could have avoided the right wing/alt right revolution that has brought us this moment in our history. Let the voters vote and stop using the NY TIMES to affect the result. You gave us Clinton. Who’s your candidate now?
God forbid a well meaning, honest and dedicated president endanger or jeopardize the long entrenched leaches in the House of Senate!
3
Taking economic advice from a man like Larry Summers is like taking advice from the Captain of the Titanic on how to steer a ship away from icebergs. In addition to believing women's brains can't do math, he was instrumental in making the 2008 financial crash possible. And if nominating conservative Democrats is a sure fire way to avoid losing control of congress, then how was it that Obama and Clinton lost lopsided Dem majorities in both houses?
We've had a spate of NYT articles reporting on the apoplexia among the nation's pitiful, hard-pressed billionaires cringing at the thought of a Warren candidacy. And now mirabile dictu! A spate of columns and an avalanche of punditry appears confidently assuring us that Warren is "too left" to beat Trump, and if she does, it will cost the Dems congress.
I'd really like Nate Cohn to take a moment from casting runes and cashing his corporate paychecks to explain how it is that moderate, conservative Democrats keep losing hard won Democratic congressional majorities in a single election cycle.
3
Where are these “pundits” and expects when it comes to the effects of spending limited tax dollars on a space force or billions on a wall?
Has a reporter asked “ how ya gonna pay for it?” when it comes to a space force? No.
What if this, what if that? Get on with if! Also, stop with the second guessing! We can do medicare/ medicaid for all lets get on with it!
2
I think Adam Schiff looks rather presidential presiding at the Trump impeachment hearing.
1
Only a Thomas B. Edsall/Bret Stephens ticket has any chance of winning.
2
Old white man grumblings. Hey old men, these are unprecedented times and our democracy hangs in the balance.
The problem is one with the dem party unfortunately. Your statement that Warren's progressive agenda would receive "a mixed reception from the extensive network of Democratic policy mavens, including a number of economists." The problem is that network of old white men Democratic policy mavens. So they are against universal health care and are for the crazy amounts of medical bankruptcies? The real problem is corporate control over these democratic pundits - the curse of neo-liberalism. Time to wake up and think of more than your 401k - time to think of your children, and your children's children. But, old white men boomers would rather hoard resources and government benefits so that the Medicare program is penniless by the time their debt-burdened children age in.
In short, these are the same old white men - bozos if you will - that said Hillary would definitely win.
Time to stop listening to the Bozos. We need to do what this country needs to rehabilitate our crumbling democracy and make sure you old bozos leave your kids a better world. But, who cares, so long as you get yours right Mr. Edsall?
Kind of funny how these so called democrats are so quick to turn on the blue collar voters that built this party. We need a populist movement and elitist bozos should retire and step aside - we don't want the world you want to leave.
Nothing extreme about Elizabeth Warren whatsoever. She's the new normal.
2
Fox & friends will spread lies so thickly about the Democratic nominee that it hardly matters what she actually stands for. The only way they've been effectively defeated is by running someone with sufficient charisma to draw people in spite of the propaganda. Not a good way to pick a president but "It is what it is"...
Who cares about a circular firing squad when everyone is having so much fun firing at the President with the Impeachment Circus? Only the voters who will decide the next election so carry on.
It’s amazing how people vote directly against their self-interest.
Columnists have their shtick. Edsall's is to wag his finger in the face of readers and tell them the nature of reality. After all he has read studies. It was already tired years ago and all his finger wagging becomes disheartening.
He is just another voice explaining that his notion of reality dictates that people who are struggling, who cannot afford decent healthcare, whose children are at risk need to continue to do without.
3
Nonsense!
Beware those preaching this false alternative: it’s either the crazy guy or the status quo. Either you get a right-wing authoritarian or a moderate. (With the latter being defined as someone who will not tax the rich to provide for the poor.)
Democrats should not be swayed by this logic again, as they were in 2016.
Warren’s argument – that having the kind of social services that all other industrialized democracies enjoy, such as universal healthcare, free public education, etc. – is neither radical nor dangerous. It is humane and commonsensical.
These ideas can be caricatured as “radically progressive” only in a country that is so far to the right. In the rest of the world, they’re considered common sense.
3
A lot of "but what about XYZ" arguments defending Warren on here. The same "but what about" argument is used by Trumpians over and over, and here you all are.
Having been so epically wrong in 2016, I’m curious to know on what basis you would think any value is placed on your prognostications?
2
"In other words, polarizing candidates diminish turnout in their own party while boosting turnout among opposing partisans."
Maybe.
What pundits like you sir, forget, is that we are seeing the Republican party doing everything they can to gain as much power as they can with any means necessary to do so.
EW and her policies are based on integrity and to the benefit of the American PEOPLE. Why is this such a dangerous path?
The mega wealthy have been provided unequal representation for years and with the current administration, at hyper speed.
We will see what the people say. People like you can do your best to spread fear and confusion about what is best for the people of this country but I would ask that instead, you spend your energy and talents pointing out the dangers that we are currently seeing from the right and the overwhelming power grab happening in plain sight.
3
Mr. Edsall is unconvincing. By whose measuring stick is Elizabeth Warren an "extremist"? And "there is evidence, however, that Warren’s strategy could generate a backlash leading to the re-election of Donald Trump"? It seems to me that anyone so nervous about Warren ruling should be quite comfortable with Trump reigning. So Mr. Edsall shouldn't be worrying.
3
The real danger is Trump. Please write about that.
4
Wow. Imagine if someone ever bothered to print as many words critiquing the "policy positions" of candidate Trump. Or is it only the intelligent women candidates that are so worthy of all this spilt ink?
1
OMG! The Republicans will attack us if we do anything! We must cower in the corner to prevent that! Look, here’s a secret: they’re going to attack you no matter what. Look what they did to reasonable, accommodating Obama.
4
"The Danger of Elizabeth Warren."
Oh, please. You know what's a danger? The lunatic sitting in the White House and his legions of enablers, starting with those in Congress.
Sondland is testifying at this very moment that, quote: "This was a quid pro quo. Everyone was in the loop."
Everyone. Trump. Pence. Pompeo. Giuliani. And god knows who else.
That's where the danger lies. In the lawlessness of this administration.
8
Pretty sad that some think a strong, intelligent, honest woman has no chance against a lying con man and his utterly corrupt party. Republican voters apparently value corruption over honesty.
4
A ludicrous article. Many polls have shown that most Americans favor Medicare for All.
3
Mr. Edsall, you forgot one of the most important reasons Elizabeth Warren is dangerous: OMG, she's a woman!!! Hand-wringing, pearl-clutching time! We can't do that again!
No, Elizabeth Warren's main problem, as it will be for ANY Democratic president is Mitch McConnell. Mr. Democratic-legislation-must-fail. Mr. yet-she-persisted. Nobody, but nobody gets anything done unless Mitch McConnell decides it benefits him. The rest actually doesn't matter much.
2
First off, voting for a woman, that's a tough start to begin with. Next, talking about dangerous stuff like Medicare For All, like the plans available to the rest of the world, that's way too scary. I'm still trying to wrap my head around Social Security and Medicare for anybody. Can we please cut back on those, it would make me less ascared. And I tried getting under my bed to hide from these awful things, but it was too crowded with billionaires, Wall Streeters and other a lot of crying white men. So sad, so sad!
1
What to do, what to do?
The climate and our practices destroys this holiest of planets. The concentration of wealth and worry reminds us of our worst times. The future is ominous unless we recognize our guilt and complicity in all of this, and then make real changes to try and save a world and a nation.
But, don't go 'extreme'? The Stanford professors are fine fellows I'm sure, but reality trumps (ha) their hand. We need to wake up and try and save this place. We must.
Extreme is: a man that is a braggart, bully, shyster, liar, draft-dodger that maligns POW's, tax cheat, misogynist, racist, traitor. And, holy cow, if that criminal becomes President, how extreme is that?
Time for the grown-ups to grow-up and lead with truth and honor and love for all humanity and life on earth. Time.
If I've counted correctly, this column quotes twelve pundits, every one of whom is male. Why?
2
One more NYT op-ed saying that the Dems should run a Repub candidate to beat Trump in 2020. Enough!
3
How fascinating is it that dire "how the sky will fall" predictions from statisticians, economists, and other sycophants to the billionaire class, always seem to surface in the media in response to the rise of a strong, dynamic woman to the top of the polls? Their fear that she'll shrink what's in their pants (their wallets, that is) must be astoundingly difficult for them to control. Yet she perists.
Et tu, Thomas Edsall?
Remember Barack Obama? He tried to find common ground with Republicans. How did that go?
No matter which Democrat (or Democratic Socialist) is nominated, Republicans will paint that person as a wild radical endorsed by Satan. Doesn't matter if it's Benito Mussolini or Karl Marx or Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders.
I'm so sick of reading fear-mongering NYTimes columns warning us not to support progressives! I agree with their positions, and I'm voting for a progressive in the primaries. I'll vote for the Democratic nominee in the national election. Will you?
2
Yet another conservative voice braying about the faults of Warren. Everyone knows polls and stats can bend anyway you want depending on the sample. The chances of a more positive outcome than presented in this piece is just as likely. Nice try, but no cigar.
1
Just stop. What about the danger of electing Trump to a second term? Let’s discuss that please, since old white men seem to be so terrified of a woman being president. Someone who actually wants to focus on the wellbeing of all Americans and not just the 1percent. I am exhausted by waking up to whatever new stupid or illegal thing this administration has done or is planning to do, all the while saying the president is above the law and he wants what he wants. How about what the rest of us want and what is best for all of us?
It is strange to demonize Democratic candidates as "extreme" and "dangerous" when the president is literally being investigated for bribery and his party basically endorses white supremacy, bans Muslims from entering the country, separates families at the border, disregards actual science and facts, believes climate change is a hoax, encourages violence at political rallies, and it goes on, and on, and on. Maybe, just maybe, the Democrats aren't the radical, extremist party we should worry about.
2
Don't know why anyone would listen to Larry Summers. Many believe him to be the architect of the last recession. Bill Clinton took his advice about deregulation and then we had the bank/real estate driven recession.
https://fair.org/home/media-cite-architect-of-last-recession-as-expert-on-preventing-another-one/
1
Elizabeth Warren can beat the Republican candidate, Mike Pence.
1
As a lifelong democrat I will vote for Trump should neither Sanders or Warren receive the nomination. Before the reader gets too exercised I will add that my vote is of no consequence as are the votes of 10's of millions of Americans. Citizens of the left coast haven't had a say in the Presidential election in the 20th century thanks to the electoral college. Oregon will vote for any democratic candidate. Speaking favorably about Trump in Portland could get one into trouble. But I think if the democrats settle for wizened mediocrity (think Biden) or an inexperienced small city mayor (think Mayor P) who has studied the art of Clintonian triangulation and, IMO is ( as the English say) too clever by half. Trump has greatly deepened a swamp that was reborn (yes, we have had many swamp incarnations in our history) under Richard Nixon. America has gone downhill ever since, particularly since the end collapse of the USSR. Obama did little or could do little (take your choice). The existential threats we face (global warming, stagnating wages for middle class Americans, ever increasing health care costs, declining educational achievement etc.etc.)will not be solved or mediated by mediocrity or inexperienced leadership. Maybe the swamp needs to get deeper before we realize we're drowning.
The tragedy of Warren for everyone is that she's right. There's been a tremendous transfer of wealth to the 1% over the last 40 years, and it's come directly out of the pockets of wage earners.
We're approaching a tipping point now. It really is becoming impossible to run our society via taxes on wage earners and other use taxes, because wages have been so depressed. Housing, healthcare, retirement, college tuition, are all imposssible to finance on most people's current wages without taking on massive debt. Something previous generations didn't have to do.
Mathwise, Warren is right, although her message is politically unpopular. The real question for the dems now is long are they willing to keep their heads buried in the sand and ignore this reality, and how much will it cost them and when?
3
Economists? Experts? Summers? Come on, these discredited "experts" led us down a rat hole more than once - there is no expertise there just bad guesses at what makes economics work.
Mr. Edsall has a full quiver of the wrong arrows to point at the Progressive wing of the party. Pundits don't resonate here in my home, we ignore them. We want some fundamental changes as we're no longer in a world which makes any kind of "micro" or "macro" economic sense.
Some real new thinking is needed and Warren is right, we're in a new era and the old ways of doing things won't work.
1
@JGS: The world is fractal. This makes it scale-independent, such that much can be inferred from properties of all systems that respond conditionally to their contexts.
Incrementalism favors neo-republican fascism. Why? Because of the electoral college and senate minority mob control. We don’t really have a choice. Either we do it now or we likely will head into fascism.
I don’t see moderates planning anything that will fix the ground floor and in leaving it they lead us further down the road that prepares for Trumps successor.
We on the ground floor see that a mile away. We live it. The immigration debate is a distraction used to place blame on the victims instead of the perpetrators who printed undocumented workers to be here for their profits.
Instead of trying to explain the abuses to people you moderates are running cover for these alt-right republicans. Do you really believe this country will survive the Republican Party that lies daily without even a second thought?
The irony is we are trying to triage the consequences of globalization that made the very rich extremely profitable. The last time globalization failed what happened? And who is leading us directly to that path? Incrementalism in their favor at this point supports the right wing who truly are radicals. Just look how much they lie to achieve their agenda and protect their leader.
2
In this country we are a body of ninnies. And we are conjoled into our desperate circumstances by pundits, who can find plenty with which to attack that which every industrial nation in the world has provided for its citizens, and some lesser others, such as Costa Rica, which do the same. If we trot out medicare-for-all, we may as well say that the apocalypse is on the horizon, and the end of the world will surely come to pass. Why are we so enamored with a medical delivery system which is so ponderous and so expensive that it is bankrupting our country literally. Yet, if anyone proposes a solution, and a solution which every other country in the world which cares about its citizens provides, then suddenly it's radical politics. I for one am sick of it. Other countries in the world have figured this out, and if we have to tax a few billionaires to get it done, so be it. But I am sick to death of hearing pundits and others who continually decry that voters will not support Elizabeth Warren and will vote for Donald Trump, just because she wants to tax billionaires and provide universal healthcare. If we are so politically and intellectually vacuous as to support Donald Trump because we may get universal healthcare and higher taxes on billionaires, then we deserve Donald Trump and the final destruction of our government and our country.
3
If all the talkers who demand a candidate who campaigns on sweeping change like Warren vote; and if she wins in a popular vote landslide then yes she could beat Trump. But if the talkers just talk and whine and don’t bother to vote (as happened in 2016) Warren as the candidate will doom us to a Republican dictatorship.
1
"Moderation? It's mediocrity, fear, and confusion in disguise. It's the devil's dilemma. It's neither doing nor not doing. It's the wobbling compromise that makes no one happy. Moderation is for the bland, the apologetic, for the fence-sitters of the world afraid to take a stand. It's for those afraid to laugh or cry, for those afraid to live or die. Moderation...is lukewarm tea, the devil's own brew."
-- Dan Millman
Ever since the "third-way" Democrats of the Democratic Leadership Council took power with the election of one of their founders, Bill Clinton, the Democratic leadership has turned away from the progressive values that drove the Dems from FDR through LBJ. They decided on seeking corporate funding to match the GOP's money advantage & that required placating the corporations by throwing trade unionism & the working class under the bus. Their strategy continues to be to go after the "undecideds" in the middle - the "moderates," ignoring the grassroots liberal/progressive base & trusting they will get their votes as the lesser of two evils. I ask the people denouncing Warren & Sanders, "How that worked out for Presidents Al Gore, John Kerry, & Hillary Clinton?" Are we going to add Hillary version 2 (Joe Biden) to the Dem's collection of also-ran moderates?
Everything Warren (a firm capitalist) & Sanders (a democratic socialist) are campaigning on is already standard practice in most of the advanced world. And it works.
1
Just what we need, another opinion from a status quo standard barer writing an opinion piece on why a woman, and specifically the woman in the lead is a problem. It's 2019, maybe it's time we act like it.
2
Warren is an incredibly divisive candidate and her numbers don't add up for her proposals. She vilifies business and anyone successful. I don't even remotely qualify for her wealth tax and never will but I paid my student loans and saved for my kids college. I'm not voting for a candidate that wants me to pay other peoples student loans off. Sorry. I'm also not paying for free college for the wealthy. Aid should be need based.
I am self employed and I pay double Social Security taxes which is already a lot. She wants to increase this dramatically. That's another non-started for me.
Her demeanor is nasty and she divides the democrats. Neither myself nor any of my moderate friends will vote for her. She will make Trump a shoe in.
I would also like to say that I do support a $15 min wage, tax reform where carried interest is taxed as income, a more progressive tax levy and so forth. I do not agree with making everything free and taxing the heck out of everyone to do it. I already pay more than half of my income in taxes. How much is fair?
Establishment, establishment, establishment, Mr. Edsall. That's what you sound like.
And isn't "inequality" one of the areas for your column?
"Inequality" is certainly Ms. Warren's banner.
1
Maybe it's the way Elizabeth Warren's delivers her plans that is scary? It all seems so radical, so abrupt, so shocking.
Yet, there really is nothing all that scary about having healthcare systems that work as efficiently as what our "socialist" allies in large swaths of Europe consider a basic human right and dignity and yes - freedom. It's also something the Heritage Foundation supported, something that Nixon proposed (and Kennedy blocked).
I'm still looking to hear a much from the Democratic candidate group about addressing many of the concerns from the folks who helped elect Trump - the white working class (or whatever the correct term is now). Address the base concerns of folks whose priority is basic job/housing/food security. Use creative solutions to incorporate necessary means of mitigating climate change. Show how this increases or at preserves our freedoms while also addressing how to get to the next day/week/month without going bankrupt or homeless.
When folks aren't worried literally about tomorrow, they can worry about their kids' tomorrows. Right now, the GOP is worried about how much it can take from you in the immediate tomorrow while leaving the mess for the rest of us to pay for and clean up. Their emotional messaging is far more effective. The Democrats really need to listen to the cognitive linguist, George P Lakoff to better deliver a more relevant, emotional message that resonates.
2
Corporate media representing the view that cooperative health care will lead to re-election of Trump... why am I not surprised. We might get four more years of Trump, because some of us will only vote for a true progressive. Very tired of hearing that we can't have medicare for all because voters are too " x " whatever to understand that they would be better off. Elect a leader to get this done.
1
It's hard for people to declare themselves for something they can't yet imagine. And yet, the US is an outlier among wealthy and even not-so-wealthy nations by not even aspiring to universal coverage. 58 countries call their health care systems universal. When we say we need to be more moderate, we are saying that we are okay with continuing to deprive some people access to medical care. We need to help people understand what life would be without losing health care when you lose a job, with benefits remaining steady despite job changes, with having access to health care even when working part-time, with being able to retire early, of not being tied to a job you can't stand because of health care benefits. This would give people greater leverage with their bosses, allow more people to work part time, if they want, allow start-ups and creative people to make a living -- all kinds of freedom. This is what we need to be talking about. Because the truth is, even if you are insured now, there's no guarantee that you will continue to be if you have a catastrophic illness or injury.
4
Is America a country where no matter her education, accomplishments, intellect, drive, determination, vision, sincerity, a woman can never be trusted to hold our highest office? I am becoming more convince that this is the case! Bad enough most voters want a President that they "like" when liking them has NOTHING to do with their qualifications or the job that they will do. I don't want to "have a beer" with my doctpr or lawyer, I want someone who is the most qualified. Why is that not the overriding consideration of everyone when choosing a candidate?!
A certain class and type of people are terrified with the prospect of a Warren or Sanders presidency because they like things as they are where the more money you have the more government you get! This is wrong and against the words that were meant to define us, our nation and our actions:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
1
The serfs must understand that they must stay in their place. To live and strive not for self, but for the wealth of their overlords, who by the way, have been quite patient about this. So, serfs, you better vote for a moderate or else the overlords will be angry.
8
Sometimes you have thing big. Tepid incrementalism, even if it seems more pragmatic, may turn out not to be.
Two obvious reasons: Even if you fail to achieve the ultimate prize you seek, if it's a genuinely worthy and attainable goal (a bit further down the road), your adversaries' victory when you fail to attain it will backfire on them when public opinion catches up to the wisdom of your goal. Sometimes, a step backward for two forward. "Receuiller por mieux sauter" as the French say, and "yerida tzorech aliya" in the Talmud.
Second, as Trump undoubtedly would have observed in "The Art of the Deal," negotiation is the art of resolving conflicting objectives and interests through either out-and-out victory of one side or compromise somewhere between the opposing positions. Almost always, the best way to get one's objective, or an outcome close to it, is by holding to the more extreme version of one's position, until the other party's leverage leaves one no choice but to move (incrementally, with resistance) toward the middle, but keeping as close as your own leverage permits to your original position. That's how all strategic negotiation works, from making public policy, to plea bargaining, to price haggling.
Of course, sometimes an extreme position may be ceded based on moral principle. But in this case, medicare for all is the ultimate moral stance.
1
Americans do not respond eagerly to some obligation to subordinate themselves to the decisions of wise leadership. They are human and are susceptible to all the means of manipulating people, but they are individuals who see themselves as independent beings who gather in communities because it’s the reasonable thing for them to do. The only time that any leader is given the authority to determine what is best for them without their consent is when they are children in the lower elementary grades. Warren has a way of coming across as the school master, instead of the inspirational leader.
1
None of the arguments made in this article explain why Bernie Sanders does better (according to polls) in the swing states than Warren. His proposals are, generally, more progressive than hers.
3
As long as Democrats keep using words like milquetoast they will never win back the blue collar base that they need to pry away from Trump.
1
With respect, Mr. Edsall is wrong. Democrats do need to energize new voters. Old conservatives, moderates and uneducated republicans aren’t going to vote blue anyway. Plus, that block of voters is shrinking.
Big change is needed to dig this country out of the hole that corporations, weak democratic politicians and greedy republicans have put this country in. Otherwise this country is not going to exist in the future.
2
@JR With respect, you are wrong. The wealthy Philadelphia suburbs went republican for decades. Since 2008 they have been trending bluer and bluer. They were a part of the Obama coalition and are the reason we won the House in 2018, and they kept the 2016 Presidential race close when rural voters came out to vote for Trump. They don't like Trump, and have been trending blue on social issues, but they will not vote for someone who is going to yank away their private insurance. These are not old people. They do vote blue. They are highly educated. You lose them, or even just get a little closer to a draw, and Trump wins the state and probably the country.
It's not 1972 any more, Mr. Edsall. If Democrats don't move out of their hyper-cautious-baby-steps-only-let's-not-rock-the-boat mode, they will lose the young folks forever. Even if they take control of both the White House and Congress in 2020, "more of the same" will ensure that Republicans will take it all back soon enough.
1
The “danger” presented by Warren is a danger for all Dems: a propaganda machine that controls almost half the electorate, feeding them alternative facts, crazy conspiracy theories, and an echo chamber that bounces off any glimmer of common sense or fact.
Only the small percentage that right now are uninterested and ambiguous about how or whether they will vote will decide 2020. Like selling toothpaste by mindless inescapable repetition, Trump will be the name they recognize if they vote.
That is what must change, That is the danger.
Can Warren do it? Can Bernie? More likely than a middle of the roader that makes Trump
look like the one with some fire and something going on, albeit a charade.
2
The republicans are calling the democrats “radical”.
--The term radical is relative to where the nation is sitting now
--Picture a horizontal line with the most progressive on the far left and the most authoritarian on the far right
--Now picture a bell curve representing 70% of the population, this would be the average population
--Then there are the 15% populations on the left and right (the other 30%) of the bell curve representing the outliers of the most progressive of the existing population and the more conservative of the existing population.
--The bell curve then moves left and right on the horizontal line meaning that the general population waxes and wanes back and forth towards being more progressive or being more authoritarian.
--There is a manipulation taking place to make the general population believe that the bell curve is leaning way to the far right when it is not.
--The authoritarian rights manipulation is to describe anything left of their position as being radical.
--Let's remove the stigma of being called radical.
--Radical is not some scary word. It is being used to incite fear because the far right authoritarian government knows that a large part of its base has a fear of change.
--Radical means: relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough. So, in relationship to the existing far right authoritarian elements of the existing government... yes, what the democrats are proposing is "radical".
2
Aren’t you the same folks saying impeachment would sink democrats? Doesn’t look that way does it.
Progressives have been saying fight hard and it will work. Impeach because this isn’t the same as Clinton.
We’re they right? Hard to give credit where credit is due. But the people on the ground floor pounding pavement have a better sense of things than the ivory tower moderates who hang out with republicans and drink champagne while looking down from the towers.
Warrens plan can't fly and thinking it will is delusional. Where is the money coming from? Trump would love to run against Warren. Are we being realistic? In what Congress would it pass? Eight years of fighting to keep Obamacare has taught us nothing.
3
Trump was an extremist candidate that got elected due to aggressive attacks on Hillary's character using the email scandal. We need a correction factor, the pendulum must swing to Elizabeth Warren.
1
I am so tired of the scare tactics everyone is using to destroy Warren. I support her and her vision for America 100%. It is time to rein in criminal capitalism and use government to actually improve the lives of We the People.
4
Once again I am dismayed by the commenters who argue vehemently and irrationally against data and common sense, insisting that their leftist candidates can win the Presidential election. How are they different from climate deniers or Trump supporters in their refusal to face the facts? They ask silly rhetorical questions like "If not now, when?" The simple answer is when you can win the presidential and other elections with that platform. And the time is not now. That platform does not reflect the mood of the country, and it will not win you the swing states needed for an electoral victory. It is time for Warren and Sanders supporters to rise above their wishlists and do whatever the data says it takes to rid the country of Donald Trump and his minions.
5
People assume that Hillary lost because she was moderate.
No, she lost beecause she was a deeply flawed candidate, and was distrusted by many who even voted for her.
Obama won soundly. Obama was a moderate.
4
The Democratic party is in deep doo-doo, and the Old Hands know it. The essential problem is twofold: the primary system (glorious democracy in action!), which awards delegates proportionally--and also coaxes out the party's most extreme, dedicated, never-say-die voters; and the idea that the party could engineer a 2-year-long run-up to the nomination flawlessly.
Both are time-bombs. None of the leading candidates will give way for the simple fact that, beyond Mayor Pete, they are all too old to hang in there for another 4 years. This fact, perversely, also keeps the younger contingent in the race; they're playing for 2024 and need the exposure, contacts and money.
This means that it is within the realm of possibility that no one will wrap up the delegate-count necessary to win on the first ballot. Nor will Liz of Bernie give way on the 2d. And so the party's "super-delegates" will have to step in on the third, in full view of the public, and get things settled down. (This is the Bloomberg/Patrick/Hillary play.) It won't be pretty. And even that might not work.
Trump, aided by the genius Brad Parscale, will run against the swamp. In a perverse way, he will become the tribune of those ignored by the Democratic Party's elite. He'll win.
1
I would write in Steven Miller for President before I would vote for most of the leading Democratic candidates.
If Amy Klobuchar is note the Democratic candidate with a very moderate V.P., Harris for V.P. will not cut it, I will vote for Trump.
Warren and my beloved Bernie Sanders would be disastrous for the country.
They want Medicare for all with OPEN BORDERS; so that anyone can have at it.
They are incompatible with maintaining this country with law and order; there will be chaos.
They will end the USA as we know it.
2
America does not need world class healthcare or education. Is that the message here?
Average people should not ask for or expect a fair chance?
Only rich people and the military matter?
What unites the white working class with the wealthy old white GOP establishment? Racism and religious affiliation, that's what.
3
Fed-Ex just lobbied the White House to lower there taxes zero. We spend billions on the military, invading nations, boring billions of dollars from China —to invade other nations, giving takes breaks to billionaires and Corporate America. Another Republican President repacked trickle down economics once again. Yet, when it comes to education, healthcare , and programs that fund US safety-net, this nations cries broke.
Yet, Ms. Warren is dangerous?
1
Wow, Larry Summers as a key source for anti-Warren arguments! This is the Larry Summers who as president of Harvard maintained close ties with his buddy Jeffrey Epstein. The Larry Summers who subsequently had to resign the Harvard presidency in disgrace after he raised an uproar by denigrating women scientists. The Larry Summers whose economic policy recommendations for Obama were mainly beneficial to his Wall Street cronies, who had paid him millions. So of course Summers dislikes Warren, who is both a woman and a critic of Wall Street.
1
When I look over Warren's list of what she wants to accomplish I give it all one big thumbs up. Items such as universal health care are a no brainer and are only "extreme" or "radical" in our low information electorate. Don't you remember we tried a moderate middle of the road candidate last time. Remember how excited we all were about that? This article's details only cement why Warren should be the candidate. Smart, progressive and fearless, what is the problem? The slant of this article is ironically summed up at the beginning: "In other words, polarizing candidates diminish turnout in their own party while boosting turnout among opposing partisans."
No they don't. The last presidential election is the direct evidence the exact opposite is true. Why would you vote for a candidate that promises to get as little done as possible? I see the next bland centrist old white guy generating zero enthusiasm and momentum on the left and losing to Don the Con.
1
The presidential election will most likely follow California's example, in which we regained our sanity and elected an older, experienced democratic governor, Jerry Brown, after realizing that a big mouthed, tough sounding and inexperienced republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger, did a terrible job.
It's fascinating to read the reactions to a thoughtful (as usual) piece by Mr. Edsall and recognize that many of the same commentators who are dismissive of Edsall's analysis would swear that Fox viewers live in a bubble.
Physician heal thyself.
5
Ms. Warren, if elected, will jeopardize the campaign funding of Democrats in the House and Senate.
Period
Facebook, that she wishes to dismantle, has been the #1 donor to Ms. Pelosi since 2016. The billionaires on Wall Street for whom she has punishing taxes have been the #1 donor to Mr. Schumer throughout his career.
Repulsive as this may be, it is reality that in the US you need massive amounts of money to run for office.
Goldman Sachs was the single largest campaign donor to Obama in 2008. Not so in 2012. Paul Krugman explained why
"Look, with even a few mild words of reproof, Obama has lost a huge funding source from Wall Street"
FT , May 25, 2012
Obama toned down. Not a single banker was prosecuted
As will Ms Warren as the election approaches. Or she will be faced with a Harry and Louise campaign that destroyed the Clinton Health Care plan
3
I don't like Trump but will definitely vote for him over any of the wild-eyed socialist looters competing for the Democrats nomination. They are only competing on the wildest spending schemes which only help those who pay no taxes but are looking for more government benefits.
2
If the ‘danger’ of Warren is that she enables us to join the rest of the civilized world... I’ll take it. Bring it on, President Warren!
4
A Warren nomination will be the greatest gift ever to the GOP
6
So the concern here is that Warren proposing decent healthcare and decent education be made available to everyone is a vote loser.
Yet whilst I am writing this Gordon Sondland is singing like a canary about the Presidents abuse of power and the GOP are falling over themselves trying to protect him from himself.
3
The article has several predictions that are susceptible to far too many variables that exceed Warren’s platform. This article falsely assumes a Democratic Presidential Nominee with the most specific policies and solutions for problems is counter conducive to working with all parties to create effective laws and stable relationships. This presidential nominee is the only one who has kept civil and avoided attacking her opponents. Why are you not attacking Bernie? Is it easier to bring down a woman, or does it just give you more joy? Even worse, this article is taxing the transparency to actual solutions that will definitely benefit every American and America as a whole. If you want to pick a fight with Warren’s presidency, you better present us with better solutions than she has. Yeah, you didn’t.
In other words, offer voters, especially working class ones, absolutely no reason to show up and vote. Great strategy!
2
Why does the Times run so many negative stories and op eds on leading women candidates, giving space to her opposition way out of proportion to favorable pieces? Of course this is part of donor and dem big shots opposition to progressive agendas, but the Times also ran many many negative stories about HRC with her moderate agenda.
3
This is the second article HEADLINE - that I can recall - that the NYT has published that associates fear and danger with Elizabeth Warren. This excludes the content of articles that do the same. These are nothing more than opinion and speculation, yet they are featured in google searches and shout at us in bold print from the paper of record. These articles are dangerous, they are sexist, and they dilute facts and hope with hysteria and hyperbole. Please, NYT, have integrity. Tell the truth. Don't reduce yourself to fear-mongering click bait just because you pander to, and are run by, the billionaires. Your loyal middle class readers deserve better.
3
Watching from a distance, I am more and more convinced that Democrats actually want Trump to remain president, so they can keep playing fish in a barrel.
They are literally writing the book on how to shoot oneself in the foot.
First they push for this long-shot impeachment process which is a) highly unlikely to go through (based on what I’ve read), b) its outcome would be to replace a racist, bigot, incompetent idiot liar (Trump) with a racist, bigot, not-100%-stupid slightly competent liar (Pence). And when they fail (again, 90% chances) they will have just given the orange clown a good excuse to play the victim and pose as a saint…Bravo!!!
And now, they are going to endorse E. Warren? Really? She will be eaten alive by Trump in debates. She does not have the stamina and has too much of an "establishment" aura. And she's way too radical, no undecided voter would ever vote for her = she is useless as far as They winning over moderates in flip districts goes. She might as well say all the right things but she will never appeal to the right people nor increase minorities turnout. This is not the time to do the right thing, it is the time to actually WIN, in 4 more years it might be too late. The only hope is that voters end up being smarter than their party and vote based on electability instead of personal preference during the primaries
2
Let see if I understand this, Republican's storm a classified meeting in the House risking nationally security, Trump attempts to extort Ukraine into interfering in US general elections. The White House counsel argues that the President is immune to prosecution even if he shoots people but its Warren who is extreme? Is that the argument?
3
At last, some coverage of the Canadian health care system. The NYT should do the same.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/americans-have-questions-about-medicare-for-all-canadians-have-answers/2019/11/18/7971c78e-d4d6-11e9-9610-fb56c5522e1c_story.html
1
Nine will get you ten Mr Edsall would never write a column like this about a male candidate.
4
I remember a recent case study of a guy named Donald. Totally electable (rapist, racist, rude), extremely partisan platform (reverse everything Obama did, install spineless unqualified hacks, give tax breaks to the rich)... and yet there was a red wave. Seems like an eternity ago though.
2
I guess we have our new boogyman...er...I mean boogywowan. America just loves a good scare. Just please remember when they were saying what a radical Obama was going to be.,,that he would destroy the country. Instead he wound up saving it from a depression. Wake up people.
2
You are sowing in sales what is called FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Very clever.
1
I thought the fear was going to be that she would start a Ghost Dance.
(US Indian Affairs c. 1890 tradition, said that Sitting Bull was conducting such dances to unite the tribes in rebellion to the Reservations.)
No worries about Warren. She will never be President. No leftist socialist ever will.
1
Cowardly opinions like this are why the US is so much further right than the rest of the developed world. If we, as a country, re-relect Trump over a true progressive candidate, we deserve Trump because clearly we're too dumb to be successful.
3
Who the heck still listens to Larry Summers? This guy has been wrong about just about everything.
4
Sure she's dangerous. She's a woman. All woman are dangerous to the establishment. Next thing you know, they'll want equal rights ! The nerve!!
2
How extremely refreshing to read an actual fact based analysis of the Democratic and wider electorate amidst the steady drumbeat of hard left wing propaganda articles in these pages. Pretty much since Reagan I've supported every Democratic candidate in the elections. I am socially moderate but also believe in fiscal responsibility. I loved Bill Clinton and his historic achievement of balancing our budget and very much approved of Obama's measured approach to the financial crisis (created by the Bushes) and his progressive foreign policy (especially on Iran and Cuba).
To me and many other millions like me, especially in the battleground states, Warren and Sanders are absolutely not electable. Their ideas do not represent our values and assuredly would lead to a massive economic crisis at which point the Democratic party would be decimated. Fortunately after a brief euphoria, the polls are starting to show the deep discomfort of even among Democratic primary voters with Warren and her like.
3
The outsider anti-establisment candidate has won every election but HW Bush in 1992. This is a primary reason DJT won in 2016, in addition to the inexplicable psychotic fears of HRC.
I vote for reason and dialogue - and we absolutely are overdue for a woman as Chief Executive. Elizabeth Warren has bold ideas - but isn't that what America should be about? This 'expert dialogue' has little to do with how voters will inform themselves and make decisions in a year.
3
I meant GHW Bush in 1988
"... polarizing candidates diminish turnout in their own party while boosting turnout among opposing partisans."
Then how do you explain 2016? According to the author, Trump should have diminished Republican turnout and boosted Democratic turnout, since he's about as polarizing as it gets.
2
I am a member of the Democratic base. I have campaigned for Sanders and Warren. I have made campaign donations for Sanders and Warren. Indeed, these progressive candidates galvanize me. If the rich donors marginalize the progressive candidates, I will bow to the corporate powers and vote for a "moderate" Democrat, but I will not work for such a choice, since it amounts to little more than an antidote to Trump. The corporate favorites do not represent the progress that we need.
4
As someone whose job requires them to spend a lot of time in several of the key swing states, I think that many of my fellow coastal Democrats gravely misjudge the mindset of swing state voters. Many voters in these states will never vote for Warren. You can preach to them about how her policies are mainstream in the rest of the developing world until you are blue in the face, but it will make no difference.
Consider the media ecosystem in which the typical voter in Ohio or Pennsylvania lives. Turn on the radio. The is single NPR station with a weak signal. Meanwhile 10+ talk stations preach 24/7 about how "liberals" have turned major US cities into dangerous wastelands. Turn on the TV. The local news station is a Sinclair affiliate. Fox News is EVERYWHERE, all the time.
Now consider the perceptions people constantly exposed to such media develop. Cities are full of "welfare queens" siphoning tax dollars for hard working Middle Americans. Illegal immigrants are popping out armies of "anchor babies" as an end run around immigration laws. Etc.
These voters would support say subsidized childcare in a vacuum, but they won't in reality. They won't because they believe such aid will not go to them, but instead to black and Hispanic women who have too many kids out of wedlock. Same twisted logic applies to basically any progressive policy. These voters simply do not believe such policies will help "people like them". People who are white, married, and Christian.
2
Warren does not get the meaning of the phrase, ‘advertising sells the sizzle not the steak’. Candidates offer people what they want to win their support. If they want to be secure with respect to their perceived needs, so that’s what you offer. If you offer them something that they should have but do not think that they do, you are provoking and argument, not selling yourself.
Giving away things for free, wiping debt, and taxing heck out of rich are NOT new and bold ideas. They have tested many times and have failed badly. Warren is only going to help re-elect Trump. She mocks people who worked hard from scratch to become something. She calls those who did well as privileged. She has turned me into someone not to vote this coming election since I cannot self-destruct myself. Only recently I have begun to grow my nest egg as I approach retirement age. It is foolish of her to take that away. Not radical new ideas but radically stupid ideas.
9
Well said!
2
I like Edsall's editorials.
1
I don’t. So?
Your word against mine.
1
The Republican Party has often put forth extremists candidates. Donald Trump is the most extreme of all. Yet he got elected, and Republicans expanded their hold on Congress in 2016. It was only after the public had 2 years to see what Trump and the Republican Party was really like that they turned against the Republicans.
Elizabeth Warren is not an extremist. What is extreme today is the oligarchic concentration of wealth, unprecedented in our lifetimes, and the pressure on the middle class. I would compare Warren to Franklin Roosevelt. Like Roosevelt, someday we might be saying how she saved capitalism from itself.
The wealth tax is quite popular in polling. Many other progressive positions poll a lot better than most people realize. People are often more progressive than they will admit to themselves, after decades of right wing demonization of liberals.
While I will vote for any of the Democrats over Trump, what those described as moderate offer is just palliative care for our social ills. Warren wants to stop the march toward plutocracy and the social and economic problems plutocracy bring. She understands that the doors she was able to go through to make it are being closed, she wants to reopen them.
5
To Zucman and high taxes on the rich in the US
His data end at 1980. That is , in a world in which countries could set domestic tax policies without global considerations.
In a global economy, this is no longer the case. Taxes, just as goods and services need to consider global competition.
In a global economy, capital and with it industry and employment moves to where it is taxed least, and this sets limits on what a country can tax. Ireland grew rich on offering the lowest corporate tax
As to income taxes , in a global economy, the rich and with it what they own, can and ro move to where they are taxed less. They now can live just as well in London, Paris, Shanghai or on the Cote Azure than in NY or SF
That is why the attempt of taxing the rich at 75% in France failed. After Gerard Depardieux famously was handed his Russian passport by Putin himself . After one soccer club after another saw players depart to lower tax countries, the French had enough. To lose the world championship on that was unbearable. The 75% was abolished.
How about the wealth tax ?
After the richest man in France moved to Belgium the wealth tax was abolished in France in 2016 by Macron.
Better to have him and his money in France.
And yes, even in socialist Sweden the wealth tax was abolished in 2007. For the same reason
I regret to say this, but some of the tax proposals of Ms Warren have proven to be failures - and will so in the US should they be implemented.
3
Elizabeth Warren will get the people out to vote all right but not for the party in which she intended. Her proposals will frighten many Democrats away and they will vote for Republicans in most of their races. They will make considerable gains in congress and the senate. Also, she will hand over the presidency to President Trump in 2020.
3
I have faith in the electorate that given our recent history that a committed progressive can win the election. My views have evolved about this, but at the end of the day in a year I think that the enthusiasm that the progressive wing will generate will overcome the inevitable attempt to smear anyone as a "socialist'. The Trumpists tried to use this against a conservative Democratic governor in Louisiana. They will use it against Biden. Franklin D Roosevelt had little trouble wining elections even though he was frequently referred to as a Bolshevik. The electorate will be different in 2020 and I believe so will the result.
2
What stuns me as a non-American observer of U.S. politics is how centrist democrats and the punditry seem to be only interested in the question how some voters might vote, a question to which as in any election there is no straightforward empirical answer, even given some empirical research based on past elections, since how those very voters will vote depends on what will happen in the next couple of months: first and foremost on the political messaging they will receive.
Who thought at the beginning of the Republican primaries that the winner would be – of all people! – Donald Trump?
The more important questions which should be asked is: What does the country now need? Which are policies which are good for the people? Is Elizabeth Warrens plan a good plan?
These are important questions. If you think that U.S. needs to change, fight for it! And if you fight for it with conviction and the right messaging, you will win.
478
Well said
20
Consensus is the unaddressed issue. While parties may disagree over how to serve the common welfare for which states exist to serve, a consensus that all share common interests allows a democratic system to work and to hold to the liberal tradition. Right now our people do not agree that they have common interests that can provide any consensus. The Democrats are running a primary that focuses upon the most politically active in their party. They are ignoring everyone else. They ignore the crucial issue of consensus.
18
@Casual Observer
As opposed to whom, the GOP?
Warren is proposing changes that would overwhelmingly help the vast majority of American citizens, regardless of their political affiliation. The GOP is clearly following a playbook that consists almost entirely of diving and conquering, and the enemy is anyone not part of their base, which it's increasingly clear consists principally of white and/or rich and/or rural people.
In normal times, you might have a point. But these are not normal times, and the GOP is not a normal political party.
32
I find it fascinating that there are so many warning us that if a Democrat who favors Medicare for all, and a reduction in the useless roles played by private insurance, is nominated then Trump will win. This is typical support for this idea found in the article, “82 percent to 11 percent, [there is support for the candidate] who promises to find common ground over one who promises to fight for a progressive agenda; and [voters] prefer a moderate over a liberal, 75 percent to 19 percent.” This is nonsense. The problem is that there is no common definition for “common ground” especially with the current Republican Party being compromised with Trumpist fascism. The United States currently spends more on military items than do the next 8 highest spending countries (and that obviously includes Russia and China). This is not sustainable, but it is not mentioned in any article that bizarrely suggests that guaranteed medical care for all defines radicalism.
4
I think people are coming to realize that she's not the answer.
The last debate was a real eye-opener for many.
The sheer reality of the systemic and structural societal changes that she's advocating hit everyone in the face, along with the realization that the fabric of the nation may not sustain such a rapid overhaul.
The fact that she was unable to cogently articulate the financials of her campaign-defining proposal didn't help.
She's realizing now how impractical and unsustainable her Medicare-for-All is in the short run and is now opting for the more widely accepted public option.
It may be too late.
Words like "punitive" are being bandied about and the reality that electorally-speaking, she cannot defeat Trump in battleground states is becoming clearer than ever.
Her "surge" in polls and the general enthusiasm for her campaign seems to have plateaued, if not dipped.
If the DNC somehow nominates Warren for President, do not be surprised if the outcome does not match expectations.
2016 redux.
2
Compare the dangers of Warren to the dangers of the moderates, centrists: Even if they win it all, we still lost, because they've already promised they won't fix that massive problems that have built up over all these years.
When you triangulate with Reaganism, and the asterisks of House tax cutters, and the provision of only some health care to only some people, and allow economic unfairness to grow and grow, what you get is THE PROBLEM.
The solution is not to do more of the problem. That is the problem.
We must win with Warren, or Bernie, or someone who offers such real fixes, because otherwise it is not a win, it is just the problem winning again.
9
“Far too often, Democratic campaigns are designed to win over mushy milquetoast (and mythical) moderates, rather than excite the base.”
Mr. Edsall has it backwards. The biggest danger facing Democrats is the continued denial by the core party leadership of why they lost the election in 2016, and have suffered a string of major defeats for decades: much of the working and middle class felt abandoned by the elitism of the Clinton Third Way policies which are focused on serving the donor class and Corporate America. Moreover, they have tried to "be all things to all people" on the surface, while not serving the interests of the majority of Americans. This betrayal of the majority of Americans came on top of the perpetual betrayal of these economic interests by the Republicans. It was this tsunami of frustration that led many voters to vote for Trump in an act of desperation.
But even in 2016 the Democrats had an alternative that would've addressed these frustrations: Bernie Sanders. But the "fix" was in - the DNC had already decided that Hilary would be their nominee, regardless of primaries, these were just a formality. Then, as now, the DNC used their influence in the media to discredit Sanders and his supporters (Now they've added Warren to this hit list), but even with that opposition Sanders made a close race of it.
So how could the DNC ignore all this support for major progressive change and believe that a middle of the road agenda will win?
Answer: Denial.
7
The same New York know-it-alls who shoved Hillary down our throats in 2016 haven't learned one thing from that year's painful reminder of the Electoral College. That system remains. Trump's base remains just big enough to matter. Running up vote tallies in Massachusetts and California won't matter. "Demographics" aren't magical, at least now.
7
I esteem Warren as the only candidate in the race who has the moral clarity, reformist vision, and understanding of the levers of power within our government to begin to address the existential problems facing our country. She's got my primary vote.
At the same time, I fear her candidacy because it's almost like she was designed in a lab to trigger the two most stupefying aspects of American public life: misogyny and anti-intellectualism. (You could throw in ageism, too--not that this makes any sense in comparison to the obviously unwell and cognitively declining incumbent, but the other two factors enable it.) That super-rich old white men--who, you know, pretty much own the media--would more or less kill the world to avoid her taking two cents off each dollar of their excess billions, does not bode well.
It infuriates me beyond measure that this brilliant, accomplished, charismatic person, whom I believe is exactly what the country needs, could be undone by these forces. Yet the stakes are so high that I'm not sure we can take the chance. All I hope for is that--as with Obama 12 years ago--she manages to figure out how to overcome these forces en route to winning the nomination.
9
--and voting for moderate Democrats has worked so well in recent years, hasn't it?
We now have:
1) A solidly Conservative Supreme Court, dominated by Trump and Bush appointees
2) Gerrymandered electoral districts that enable Republican congressional candidates to win elections with less than a majority of the vote, and
3) President Trump.
"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew."
Abraham Lincoln, December 1, 1862
6
If the status quo continues:
- 5 years from now, 30% of U.S. renters will spend half of their income on rent.
- 7 years from now, healthcare will cost $17,000 per U.S. citizen per year (one fifth of GDP).
- 15 years from now, public college in the U.S. will cost $54,000 per year.
- 17 years from now, the Social Security trust fund will be depleted.
- 33 years from now, the top 10% of U.S. households will have 100% of the wealth.
- 80 years from now, sea levels will have risen 6 feet.
4
If Americans don't have the chance to vote for someone like Warren or Sanders, Americans of all stripes would be condemned to live in a country and society that is increasingly regressive, violence, unequal in wealth and income, and bleak in most, if not all, of the measures of happiness. Warren and Sanders, in fact, are the very politicians that Americans need at this time to bring about structural and lasting changes to American brutal and predator capitalist economy and all of the ills that this system imposes on the average working Americans.
The fear of changes peddles by so-called moderates and they keep pointing to myth that a majority of Americans are resistant to radical changes while polls after polls show that most Americans are supportive of affordable health care, education, better environment, and a more equal distribution of incomes. These policies are not radical. They are practical and badly needed for the future of this country.
This article is disappointing in seeing "the trees and not the forest." I expect better from Thomas Edsall.
4
Mr. Edsall, you are quite wrong! We don’t have just Elizabeth Warren, we have other candidates ALL of which would be brilliant, honorable leaders! You go ahead and keep criticizing Sen. Warren, watch her win!
4
The US has a seriously imbalanced division of wealth. Democracy itself is threatened with the current situation. These trends will lead to more influence of corporatist forces with money to ingratiate themselves to both parties at the expense of vast majority of voters. The Democratic party establishment has now taken on an aggressive foreign policy stance based on supplying weapons to forces committed to proxy war. This at the same time that the Democrats, like Warren, are being hammered for a progressive agenda. So the Democrats are a centrist party that won't aggressively take on climate change. Trump might be ok with watching sea levels rise at an alarming rate and calamitous fires and floods plaguing the country. The Democrats are concerned but don't want to antagonize the voters. The voters are propagandized with stories of loss of jobs and growth which will occur anyway with the end of the present business cycle that wildly favors the wealthy. The Democrats are divided over abortion and gun control as shown with the recent wins in governorships in KY and LA. Warren, like Obama, would have difficulty mounting gov't efforts because spending proposals have to have tax cut sweeteners which hamstring major national efforts. Like the demise of the roaring 20s the Democrats needed a massive economic downturn in the depression to take up the mantle of the mass of people who yearly watch their ability to effect the political course of their country diminished.
1
Why all this hate on Mr. Edsall? He is doing a column on the demographics of the race. The polls he is writing about are showing concern about some of the "big" policy changes proposed in swing states. We are a deeply divided country, and the election hinges on the independent swing voters in the battleground states. They are not sold on the big changes proposed. That is the point of this article. Her coattails could carry the Democrats she needs in Congress, but a backlash to her policies could lose them. As the article states, her support is mostly white and higher income, so there is much ground to be gained for her to have an effective coalition.
3
So if we remove the "extremists" Warren and Sanders from the mix that leaves... Pete Buttigieg, Corey Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Deval Patrick, Michael Bloomberg, etc. Does anyone really think any of these people could beat Trump one-on-one?
2
As a very strong progressive, I would love to see Warren’s plans implemented. And she is still my preferred candidate.
But many of her proposals stand no chance of becoming law given the nature of our political system. Presidents propose and the Congress disposes.
I think that Warren will be best served by making many of her proposals aspirational, promising to work towards them during her term rather than plans she will push for immediately.
Medicare for All certainly tops this list.
We shall now see if she possesses the political acumen to navigate the electoral process and come out on top.
Warren is inspiring and articulate and relatable, and I am pulling for her.
Same old same old won’t cut it anymore.
1
If you don't win elections, you don't get to make policy, even if you passionately believe in that policy. Get Trump out. Win elections at local, state and federal levels. Do it from the bottom up, like the GOP did. Not the top down as HRC tried, and failed to do and as Warren and Bernie promise to do.
Get Trump out first. Nothing else is possible until we accomplish this basic task as voters.
2
@not 99pct: There are as many failed democracies as failed socialist countries.
2019 US News & World ranking of countries based on Quality of Life. U.S. ranked #17, of the top 10 countries, most are considered socialist. In healthcare, the US ranking is even worse.
In the US more people will go bankrupt due to their cost of the healthcare than by any other route. Hospitals send people to collections as people die because they can’t afford healthcare. The US healthcare system transfers wealth to the wealthy, irregardless of ability to pay.
It is sad to see people voting against their own interest because they don’t understand how the US system works or who controls the purse strings.
Just recently Hospitals groups have filed suit to block a law that compels them and health insurance companies to reveal the prices of their services, they do not want transparency.
3
The fact that the mainstream media keeps calling Warren an "extremist" speaks volumes about the power elite in the party. Change is change, it is not without problems and not without some interim pain. But we must get out of the rut that we have been in since the Reagan era and chipping away at the edges as advocated by these moderate curmudgeons will not bring about the structural change that we need. Building your premise on a narrow time line study of "House" election is ridiculous. I would have expected better from Mr. Edsall. Electing a congressman is not the same as president. My congressman supposedly represents my district and he or she is a small cog in the big wheel of government. Voting for president the leader of the nation is quite another matter, just look at what we got that passes for president at the moment.
3
@Steve
There are many NYT readers that also consider Warren's positions "extreme" -- for example, on borders and college tuition. Isn't it time to acknowledge this isn't some vast moderate conspiracy and that it's time to face facts?
1
"...wavering Republicans ... do not share Warren’s appetite for major structural change, preferring incremental change and the repair of existing programs, like Obamacare"
Really?
Where is the incrementalism in the Trump/McConnell/Koch axis of destruction?
We abandon allies to death on a whim of the moment; we abandon our troops to make do in the face of an invading army we loosed on ourselves; we ban immigration of all sorts...children...dog kennels...death, etc.
We increase deficits and give unwarranted gifts to the rich. We defund universities and throw endless dollars to diploma mills.
The list goes on and on.
This is the electoral juggernaut that leads you to warn Democrats to stay on the Clinton/Obama Corporate Reagan-Lite Democrat track?
There are problems with Dems;none of them is being to adventurous, too "radical".
In many ways these radical proposals address exactly the issues most troubling to Trump's base.
Security, employment, health, education, food, housing, all addressed one way or another in the radical programs upsetting to those of more conservative temperament.
Lost in the controversy is that America's system of economy and politics is terminally broken. Unfair, unrepresentative, inefficient, unsustainable. It requires radical approaches to bring about solutions. Anything less is delaying an inevitable choice: more equitable fashions of life or destruction from within.
Look harder. Think more.
2
The extremism is in the high number of guns in homes, the incarcerated in for profit prisons and the level of homelessness and squalor on American streets. No country in the OECD is clamoring to adopt the US health care system. I don't know anyone who likes their third party payer US health insurance company. Profile these people. Bring them forward to explain why they like it so much.
6
Irony that Republicans like Nunes are actively - at this moment! - are trying to smear Biden that if successful will only move Warren's candidacy up and possibly leaving America with the choice between a criminal authoritarian Russian agent and someone with grand ideas that will inevitably be pared down by both sides of the aisle in Congress should she be elected - not that the trump will ever leave office regardless of America's choice.
Edsall, an old white male conservative, spreads fear. That’s all conservatives have to work with. Look how well it worked for them with conservative, Wall Street supporting, Clinton.
7
The card moderates are playing this time around is fear, which often leads to a poor outcome. Nobody knows how this will play out, and I'm getting sick of pundits, with an idea of how this could play out, trying to steer us based on how they think others are going to vote. This advice is less helpful than they imagine.
1
I greatly appreciate the detailed analysis of the economic and political experts cited in this very insightful article, but to me, they simply reinforce what is intuitively obvious.
Primarily, that Warren's radical (and I hate to use that charged word because it is one of Trump's favorites, forcing me to admit that I actually agree with him) plans have no chance of support among the powers that actually matter. Those would be the Congress and their wealthy advocates in corporate America. There is simply little to no chance that any of her proposals would become law.
The obvious danger of Warren (and Sanders btw) among the electorate is that they split Democrats into factions. When any given candidate loses the Democratic primary, that candidate's supporters are likely to vote for no one in the general election. The faction supporting Warren is large, and their absence in November will give Republican voters, united behind Trump, a large advantage.
These times are no times for novel, a la carte policy offerings among the Democrat candidates. They should instead all get in lock step behind the issue at hand, which is rescuing our democracy and our laws from the assault of the corrupt authoritarian Donald Trump, and they should get behind the candidate best suited to lead. That is NOT Elizabeth Warren.
1
As a Dem, I've always admired her. The Consumer Protect Agency was her creation. But she is well suited to be a senator or a policy wonk, not a president. She is super sharp on several spokes but not on the big wheel of the presidency.
3
Mr. Edsall makes a strong and compelling argument for Democrats to nominate a centrist. The question is, will more people vote for a Buttigieg or Biden over a Warren or Sanders? There's anecdotal evidence and polls that indicate a centrist will do better. Much as I like Warren, she's boxed herself into a corner with so many excellent - but very progressive - policies. How will she appeal to moderates if she's the nominee? With Buttigieg surging in Iowa, tonight's debate should be interesting.
@Eric
Most Americans will find someone who appeals to them enough to receive their votes. It's only progressives who *will not* vote for someone.
1
The claim that moderation is the road to electoral success was proven wrong in 2016. Most people I know would consider HIllary Clinton a holder of moderate political views, a centrist in the spectrum of contemporary political thought, yet she was defeated by a candidate whose platform was quite extremist indeed, advocating moves that were both unconstitutional and radical. Now, I don't claim to have my finger on the pulse of the public, but the underlying assumption that the American public will always choose a centrist is clearly old school thinking. If Trump were to win again, it would not be because he has moderated his stances, but because enough independent voters are sick enough of centrism that they are even willing to back a senile egotist if his statements are extreme ENOUGH.
4
First, Clinton only technically lost the 2016 election due to the quirk in our constitution that is the Electoral College. She has been widely criticized for a flawed strategy that failed to campaign in key states needed to win.
Second, she was running against an opponent who was campaigning on a right wing agenda, presumably motivating right wing adherents to support that candidate. She won that battle by 3 million votes with her centrist agenda. This does not suggest that the center is too weak to win the election.
Third, it is an absolute statistical reality that given a population with a range of views on any issue, most of those population will be in the center of the extremes of the views. When graphed, the result is the well-known bell shaped curve. Presumably the American electorate represents just such a range of views, meaning most votes will be in the center.
Finally, Clinton lost votes because of a deep dislike of her personally that is held by a significant segment of the population. I don’t understand this myself, but it clearly was, and still is, a significant factor. Regardless, she beat Trump but lost the election.
None of this proves to me that the next election is going to be won at the margins rather than the center.
@TonyM
She might have won if she hadn’t been packing around all of that dubious baggage and air of entitlement.
@Marshall Doris I never claimed that "the next election is going to be won at the margins". What I DID say was that, in 2016, the writer's thesis proved untrue. Trying to gauge the American public's next actions while ignoring the last expression thereof strikes me as foolish at best. In point of fact, the preference of the majority of Americans is NOT what decides presidential elections. First of all, there's the Electoral College, which as originally designed gave outsized power to less populous states, and which (after the limitations on the membership of both the House and the EC enacted 100 years ago) became even more disproportionate. Then there's the sad but very true fact that a huge percentage of eligible voters don't bother to cast a ballot. In my experience, unless they are personally extremely charismatic, centrist politicians are not the best at inspiring voters to actually get to the polls. Now, the reaction AGAINST candidates who are considered extremists can motivate people to vote for their opponents, but that's a far different thing.
The Democratic presidential candidates are just too liberal for middle America. Elizabeth Warren is out in front with all her progressive policies. She is not very likely to win the nomination but nothing is ever certain in politics. Even is she should win the nomination, she will lose in 2020. People are not ready for her radical agenda.
It's no longer possible to ignore the pattern of negative stories about Sen. Warren in these pages.
Last week, a "news" story trumpeted a Penn Wharton study that said Warren's wealth tax would deter growth. However, the story failed to note till the 13th paragraph that the study didn't take into account the possible growth generated by the programs the tax will fund.
Now Edsall quotes Clinton-affiliated neoliberals to demonstrate the supposed "danger" of Warren's candidacy while leaving the positive perspectives on her policies to the very end of a long, long piece that few will take the time to read all the way through.
The wealthy elite -- including centrist Democrats and their mouthpieces in the press -- are panicked about Warren's plan to bring to an end their multi-decade plundering of hardworking Americans.
Her plans are not radical, and Edsall is old enough to remember that most are in line with Democratic policy positions prior to the hijacking of the party by Bill Clinton and the neoliberals.
Let's assess Warren's programs fairly, and refrain from hyperbole designed to deter thoughtful voters from supporting her compassionate, egalitarian candidacy.
7
"Extremist candidates do worse, because, contrary to rhetoric, they fail to galvanize their own base and instead encourage the opposing party’s base to turn out more, on average."
No candidate has ever been more extremist in his behavior and rhetoric than Trump, yet Democratic turnout fell from 2012 to 2016.
So much for that theory.
4
Elizabeth Warren lost me with her free programs - healthcare, education, childcare, etc and her refusal to answer the repeated question of how to pay for it. Smells like political nonsense. Not reassuring at all! Why couldn't she just say that she would reinstate progressive taxation with the wealthiest paying the most? On top of this, her open boarder policy and healthcare for undocumented, or new term, not legally present, people will lose much of America. Also, her double speak about her ancestry is poisonous - something that will dog her in this presidential campaign. This would be a disaster for the Democrats.
1
The thing I fear most is the cleaving of the Democratic coalition and articles like this, are helping do that.
I like VP Biden, I think he will do a good job and I believe he can beat Donald Trump. I am also not a fan of Medicare for All. But if the Democratic Voters believe our country is best represented by Sen Warren, then she has my heart, my time and my vote. journalists trying to be relevant by guessing what people are thinking and feeling and treating this like a horse race are really troubling. Sen Warren is running a strong campaign and if she - against many odds- wins the nomination, I think she is strong enough to win the general. But this article is insulting to Democratic voters and a bit arrogant.
1
@Kevin Jordan Thoughtful comment.
Trump wasn't worried about a backlash, he is the one who lashes anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him. He sold people on the idea that idea that hate is good and they would all be billionaires if it wasn't for evil socialists progressives like me. Single payer health care would be a vast improvement on what we have now, because right now every drug company, insurance company and hospital chain is bilking the system for amounts of money that are not even conceivable to us mortals. The reason we won't get it is because the incredibly rich people who run these companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to influence Congress, the press, and the public to keep their gravy train running.
4
Millions of Democrats could not possibly vote for Warren next November, because she simply is not qualified to be Commander and Chief. No executive background. She would be a disastrous choice.
1
The left wing is maxed at 35 percent and divided. Once all the minor candidates fall out the remaining support will coalesce around one of the moderates. The whole process will make the resulting ticket look even better to those worried about the left wing, for having been victorious over them. If that remaining moderate candidate isn't Biden then the one with the funny name (like Barrack Hussein Obama had a funny name) will probably be an acceptable default for those left voters who don't fall for the "burn everything if you don't get your way" agitators.
Why is the New York Times featuring a negative, demoralizing, "we'd like to change but we just can't darn it" editorial like this so prominently? Th editorial basically says that the Democrats must not promote structural change. It's too dangerous, it would alienate all those voters who long for---what? "Moderation", it seems. If it's moderation the voters want, then why did Trump get elected last time around? And why are Republicans so busy laying the groundwork for an American fascism? You'd better get busy using the freedom of the press you still have left, in order to try fixing what's broken, before it's completely taken away from you. Elizabeth Warren at least has a plan. What's yours?
7
Uh...dude. Donald Trump is beyond extreme and he WON the presidency three years ago. What?
4
If America can't change, it deserves to die. It's really that simple.
5
After everything we’ve seen the last few years, from the #MeToo movement, to the 2018 elections which saw the most women and the most diverse class of Americans to Congress in the Democrat House, the Times keeps publishing these dog-whistle pieces labeling Warren as “dangerous” or “unlikeable”.
4
Constant negative OpEd pieces in the NYT about Warren. The NYT clearly perceives her as a viable nominee and has been engaged in not so subtle efforts to undermine her candidacy. I am waiting, for example, for corresponding OpEd pieces regarding Buttigieg questioning the candidacy of an individual whose governing experience consists of seven years as a mayor of a city with a population of slightly over 100,000. However, if one isn't rocking the status quo, they have nothing to fear from the NYT. Disgraceful.
6
The Good Cop of the Billionaires' Club has spoken: Repent! Repent of your economic ambitions before you are punished by the gods!
1
The NYT is trying valiantly to get its progressive readers to be realistic about this election. In so doing, it demonstrates that it's "all in" for the Democratic Party. Like the good partisan soldier it is.
2
@AACNY
The upper income moderates are trying valiantly to let everyone know that they’re afraid of additional taxes and regulation. It’s unfortunate that there is so much greed.
2
SO... naysayer... Your solution? Business as usual.. it's too hard to change.. we got this? Even with the enormous evidence that this government is NOT WORKING for 90% of the people, the ones that actually PAY their taxes? Don't try to change things it's too difficult? And I'm guessing you probably have a nice portfolio you just don't want anyone to touch. Hang on. The Progressives will win. Money isn't buying the votes anymore. Ideas are. And dude.. who would vote FOR FRACKING.?? that lives in PA?... you need to get out more. You are so out of touch, I am surprised to find you here. or, maybe not. (ps.. nobody likes their private insurance).
4
Here we go again, the Times is playing the same cards as last time. The cards are milquetoast, eek a mouse, and number one, people like Edsall, fear disruption, fear their gravy train will be garnished.
They very irrationally and or dishonesty claim that somehow Warren is going to upset the apple cart and magically rearrange the united states all by herself. Obviously absurd as no president has this much power on their own, not even when their party leads both houses by small margins. Specifically because our team is not and will not be perfectly aligned. There are no slam dunks in American politics.
Things not already messed up enough for you? Vote the Dem party establishment nominee again and crush what may be our last opportunity for a just democracy, not to mention the environmental train wreck coming at us full speed.
The rhetoric coming from people like Edsall and the New York Times is heart breaking. Both of whom completely fail to grasp the facts defining our time. You'd think they would have learned something last time around.
Last but not least we already see the "oh no, not the radicl left wing!
News flash folks: There is no radicle left in the US. Warren and Sanders are simply proposing what every other industrialized nation accomplished decades ago!
4
What a load of nonsense. If anything, the OPPOSITE will occur. Buttigieg, Biden, et al., will not have the coattails Warren or Sanders will, because they can drive turnout. No one (or very few people are excited for Biedn or Buttigieg. If anything, more people will stay home if they are the nominee.
3
This is just another NYT attack on Warren. Clearly, the Times wants another neo-liberal nominee like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. Now, Edsall shifts the electability focus to Congress and the Senate without real evidence, just a "maybe". Well, maybe the Green Party will run Ralph Nader again and take GOP funding to do it. There are a lot of "maybes" that anyone can conjure. The choice of the "maybe" to conjure tells much about the conjurer.
3
No wonder young people are so disengaged from politics. Joe Biden the establishment candidate won’t even legalize pot. Misguided or not, young people don’t see any difference in the 2 political parties. You often hear them say, “what’s the difference - why bother to vote?”
2
Let's get real. Bernie proposes this stuff and is wildly popular. Let's call it what it is. Warren is a woman. Period. That will define the pushback against her. Just like a pushback because of Obama's skin color gave us the guy who pushed the Birther movement as President. We have so much growing up to do as a people.
4
“Whoever the Democratic nominee is will be able to capitalize on widespread hostility to Trump, a motivated Democratic electorate and the party’s continuing gains in formerly Republican suburbs across the nation.”
This offhand concession to the power of united disgust for Trump is where our victory lies. Articles that sow doubt and fear while diminishing hope do nothing to help the democratic cause. The polls cited in this article should be starting points for creative problem solving; not reasons to resort to fear-mongering.
It’s also worth noting that the author, an older white man, cited 11 other white men in this article to support his arguments. Who else is tired of this brand of hot air?
5
Elizabeth Warren says that American workers will get first priority at the jobs that immigrants want. Silicon Valley said the same. But the H1B Visa was abused when Schumer said Facebook and Google can not find enough workers for their needs and therefore had to bring in people from Southeast Asia.
2
How about an article titled: The Danger of Joe Biden or The Danger of Pete Buttigieg. Clinton should’ve taught the Democrats that establishment democrats will lose to even a faux populist right winger candidate in Donald Trump. Even if I were to buy into the premise of this article, which I don’t, it’s surely better to have at least one branch of government under Democratic control.
8
The real problem is not the so called radical candidates but ignorant voters and the corporate media. Many of Warren’s ideas are commonplace in other advanced capitalist countries but appear extreme in the US because of the way they are framed and the unrelenting attacks by the “pundits.” Btw following the advice of economists who still favour the analytical perspective that brought us barbaric capitalism and the Great Recession is pure foolishness.
7
The funny thing is that a lot (although not all) of Warren's proposals are not actually far left - she and Sanders are pretty much New Deal Democrats who want to make life a bit easier and more productive for the working class and ordinary men and women. When he was President, Eisenhower once said that anyone who does not believe in the New Deal does not have a place in American politics. But now, we have come to the point when people like Warren and Sanders who want to help the little guy are considered socialist and unelectable. In addition, who thinks that *anyone* who becomes president in this country will be able to enact a broad socialist agenda? The most logical outcome is that once Sanders or Warren is elected president, they will have to swing toward the center, which will be an all around good thing for everyone. Don't vote for someone based on what they are campaigning; vote for them based on how you think they'll actually govern.
4
Most Americans use their fear of extremism to do nothing.
2
What will it take for progressives to accept that their positions just aren't popular enough to get a candidate elected?
4
@AACNY
What will it take for some to accept that they are greedy?
If wanting ordinary people in this country to get healthcare and earn a decent living are radical, dangerous ideas, then count me as a dangerous woman, too.
2
Yes, by all means, if you want to dissuade Millennials and Gen Z (and most of Gen X) from turning out in recording numbers to vote, let's go with another middle of the road, milquetoast Dem candidate. That worked SO well for Hillary in 2016, didn't it?
4
Senator Bernie Sanders beat Trump in every poll matchup in 2016 -- It was always going to be Sanders or Trump BECAUSE it was an Electoral College race that required winning big in the rustbelt, which Sanders did in the primary against Hillary Clinton because he was strongly part of the #StopTPP movement and called the TPP "another lousy trade deal like NAFTA that doesn't protect American workers." Bernie was in the #FightFor15 and stronger protections of Union organizers. Meanwhile, Clinton sat on the board of Walmart when that corporation FIRED workers, who dared to protest for the promised full time work and benefits, after being stuck as temporary workers for as long as two years. She was against a minimum wage of $15 and said she "might" be willing to fight for $12... This is how the Democratic Party proves they are a sold-out-to-lobbyist $$$$ party that ignores the common workers.
1
What the plurality of voters want is a curb on the elitism in our country which equals better wages; Good jobs; together which constitute financial security.
1
And yet, people complain of do-nothing Congresses and stasis.
92
The progressive left of Sanders and Warren can't carry the swing voters that the Dems need to beat Trump... the left's claim that they'll win by somehow bringing historical non-voters to the polls, is a hollow one. The Dems can win this by focusing on turning out our historical constituencies... Donald Trump is widely disliked by independents, we just need to make sure that our nominee is not disliked even more. I'm really glad that President Obama finally spoke up on this, because we're going to need his support & counsel.
5
@Pottree,
We have had a "do nothing " Congress ever since California went rogue with an ultra liberal Democratic constituency and Sanctuary state mentality.
2
@Richard Ralph, As an Independent, must say, Democrats have tipped the balanced for the dislike scale to their lot.
1
Wow, I knew that she was loony tunes but thank you for listing all the insane ideas of hers. There is absolutely no way someone with her views could possibly be elected president of this country. Yes, we are losing our minds but we’re still not ready for someone this crazy. Very good news for us Trump supporters.
3
Amazing, all the pundits who take campaign rhetoric seriously, unable to recall how "progressive" Obama sounded while campaigning in '08. Warren is a quasi progressive, just like Obama - once elected she'll move to the right (she already has).
Pelosi seems determined to keep her fingers on the scales of the elections as long as she can. The results will make Warren an illegitimate and ineffective President.
Absolutely true. The Democrats have a heavy burden to nominate the candidate who has the best chance to defeat the worst, most dangerous president in modern American history. They have to get it right. Warren is wrong.
2
Edsall and other nay sayers need to include in their analyses consideration of what the combination of Warren and Sanders supporters tell us. To me, it speaks to an undeniable desire for a more equal distribution of our nation's wealth. I wonder how long we can walk by, day after day, the misery of the homeless on our streets without recognizing there is something terribly wrong with our country.
Furthermore, after Clinton's spectacular loss in 2016, I am terrified of establishment candidates.
And now, with Warren dedicated to make us a more equal society, it would be a bitter pill to accept business as usual. And don't tell me business as usual is the safest of routes for our nation; I think the economic perils of all but the most fortunate of us threatens our democracy and contributed largely to the autocratic Trump.
But to rid us of Trump, I will force myself to swallow that pill and resign myself to another corporate Democrat until we are ready for another Warren to enter politics.
1
Anyone else noticing that critics of Warren are overwhelmingly white men? From Andrew Hall to Richard North Patterson, only one woman, Krystal Ball, is cited as a critic of Warren in this article. One among thirteen white men, including the author. Forgive me if I see too much bias in this article to take it seriously. When I read this opinion, all I see is fear mongering against policies that will benefit everyone except white men, and a bunch of white men using fear tactics to get their way. Seems a bit extreme to me.
3
These programs proposed that provide benefits to people require votes by Congress. Warren cannot enact these plans by herself. Rather than inform the public of this reality, the author quotes some people, such as a pundit on MSNBC, who are no more informed than the rest of us. It’s no different than when Trump states “People are saying......” Then Larry Summers, who has advocated for financial deregulation and been highly compensated by banks, is quoted. Don’t you think he has a conflict here?
Take the time to inform people of what each candidate is likely to accomplish as President, based on their records, rather than discuss how gossip and punditry will impact the election.
3
candidates diminish turnout in their own party while boosting turnout among opposing partisans.
Man what a joke! Does this guy remember 2016? Does he think Trump was moderate or Hillary a liberal?
You can't boost Republican turnout they all vote. The Democrats had awful turnout last time because nobody trusted Hillary. They will have awful turnout if they run Biden or Bloomberg or Devaul
The last election was lost because of low turn out run Biden or some other blue-dog and we'll see 4 more years of Trump
3
All of Elizabeth Warren's proposals are extremely progressive and most of the country will not go along with these. Free college education and relaxed immigration laws are not policies which will win her moderates. Her other policies will not pass muster with the electorate either. The middle class do not want to pay higher taxes when they receive no benefits. She is far too left wing for most Americans and they will be the ones footing the bill if these policies ever passed.
She is very unlikely to win the nomination but in some respects it would be to the advantage to the Republicans. President Trump would no doubt win against her in 2020. Maybe the Republicans should hope for her winning the nomination as it would guarantee President Trump four more years in the White House.
Why don't we all just cut through all this, um, nonsense? What would the poll show if the question was, "Would you vote for a woman as president?" Don't ask "why," of course, but it might be amusing to hear some of the reasons.
4
@Rea Tarr I would vote for Kloubachar in a second.
The faction formerly known as the Democratic Party has been hijacked by the Left. Our family...Democrats, all...consider the Leftist agenda to be a far greater threat to the future of our country than anything Donald Trump could cook up. They’ve lost our vote.
5
Couldn't read another article bashing the left leaning democratic candidates. But was uplifted by the first 10 commenters who put this article in perspective. Clearly the democratic establishment is getting anxious.
4
Ohmigawd. An intelligent, emotionally stable, talented, forward thinking, compassionate and competent woman is a threat to the welfare of the state while Donald Trump is the new "normal"?
6
Democrats are cowardly lions who will get what they deserve, not a brave heart. Their actions start with meekly accepting the right's label of "extremist" for some of their own, and extends to a second term for Trump. Somewhere in this long explication of their fear and hesitancy is an appropriate epitaph, I'm sure.
1