I am tired of Clinton supporters (and I voted for her) blaming Sanders for her loss. If Warren doesn't get the nomination will the main stream of the party blame Sanders again?
10
This line rung a big bell for me: "She shares Sanders’s economic populism, but as a registered Democrat who has worked within the party — including in the Obama administration — she’s cultivated more good will inside it."
And I'm speaking as left-wing Rooseveltian Democrat, but not a strong party supporter. And yet it bothered me that Sanders ran as a Democrat in the 2016 primaries, when he wasn't. After he lost the primaries, he went back to his corner as an independent. And now he's back again. He could've run as a Republican or, better yet, just run as an independent and don't drag down the Democratic party. Or better yet, remain in the party and work within it, what a concept. As much as I like Sanders, I much preferred Hillary Clinton, in part for her decades of working within the Democratic party. And I give the same points to Elizabeth Warren. Oh, and I'd much prefer to have a woman running against Trump.
3
@Gene W. I would have liked the "remain in the party" option. A lot of his ideas are great, and in effect he has moved the party to the left, but think what he could have done as a real member of the party? Well, who knows, he would still have had to work with the specific people, and maybe he wouldn't have wanted to do that.
3
Sorry, but instigating a blatant smear campaign against a man with an astonishingly consistent 50+ year record (who also made hundreds of appearances in support of Clinton after she won), is not unifying but entirely the opposite. It smacks of desperation borne of an elitist entitlement to the nomination. I wouldn't say Warren in more phony than most politicians, but she is phony enough that it's shining through the cracks in her campaign now. I know plenty of non-coasters who dislike Sander's politics, but a priori they don't trust Warren because of this perceived, rightly IMO, holier-than-thou nimbus she seems to cart around. I put her electability chances at very slim , at best.
8
@steven "Smear campaign"? It's not like she said he hated the idea of a woman winning the election. That a woman would face serious problems sounds like a pragmatic analysis you might hear from a lot of feminists. It was just one remark, in the course of a conversation, and maybe nobody should have even mentioned it, but you can't call it a "smear". My goodness, there will be plenty of real serious smears coming, when the Republicans get in the game...
5
I agree with every word Michelle Goldberg has written. Warren shares Sanders’ ideas and goals but without showing a similar dark side. Remember how Sanders silently let his supporters boo Clinton in 2016 (as well as his own supporter, Sally Kohan, for saying a few good things about Clinton)? At some point in ‘16, the adulation went to Sanders’ head and he morphed from the “forget the damn emails” mensch to someone whose ethical compass seemed weaker than John McCain’s, policies aside. As someone who enthusiastically voted for Sanders in the 2016 primary but later regretted it, I was looking for someone with Sanders progressive without his street fighter instincts. Elizabeth Warren is that person.
6
I do not understand The NY Times' "Anybody but Biden" coverage.
3
It is amusing how this writer is wrong in virtually every editorial, but the nytimes retains her job. her reader base must be those that are most prone to click, move to cart and confirm order that justifies her position with the Nytimes. But then there is the problem with lack of credibility; but the NYTimes does not seem to be concerned about that. Warren needs to drop out, because she is siphoning support from Bernie, and allowing the closet republican Biden to win the democratic nomination. The left wing clearly has the majority in the Democratic party when the polling support for both Bernie and Lizzy are tabulated together, but not split. Vote Bernie!!!!!
5
"You're the reason God made Oklahoma.
And I'm sure missing you."
_David Frizzell
It's the economy, stupid.
Then it's rebuilding common sense -- which includes engaging the Trump angry lot.
A lefty liberal is good for neither.
Was this article written before 1/13/2019? She proved herself to be a charlatan and lost my support entirely, as well as disgusted me to the core with how readily she would try to destroy my and her aims to ensure it was her, and not her friend, to be the one to enact the aims we both long for. Gross upon gross, and a stain that won’t wash away. She’s lost me forever.
6
I don't think so. This petty squabble that her campaign initiated over what Sanders may or may not have said in a private conversation with her is pathetic.
8
Warren as the Democrats' Unity Candidate? That looks like a headline from The Onion. She may unite voters in Manhattan, Cambridge and Berkeley but for places where votes determine the winner (like WI, PA, OH, FL, MI IA and ME2) Warren will be a disaster.
11
Liberal Democrat from Massachusetts a presidential nominee..Good luck....Learning from history is obviously hard for the Democrat electorate.
5
Not after yesterday, she's not.
7
Um, what about African Americans and long time Democratic establishment folks?
@Don The idea is that they can easily learn to like her. Even if they might prefer Biden, she's an easy second choice. And similarly with those who might prefer Sanders. (Although clearly there are a few bitter hardliners this time around, too, but hopefully only a few.) Her choice for VP, and who she brings into her campaign, and future administration, will be really important.
1
The timing of this column is unfortunate after warren hurled a stunning accusation against Sanders, accusing him of sexism. Me thinks Ms Goldberg spoketh too soon
7
@Adam Not so much sexism, as pessimism about how much sexism is out there. But maybe that's splitting hairs.
2
Warren not going to do it..but most of all..extremely disappointed in the "Self-disclosure" rule...you should have stated this conflict months ago..or better yet..declined to write an opinion article citing this reason...love reading you but this is disappointing..
2
Thjanks for this great column, Michelle!!!!!!!!
1
You don't unify by riding a lie. She's all but effectively alienated the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Maybe you wrote this just before this embarrassing turn of events for her, but if you're trying to argue that she's the optimal choice for unity after unearthing an unsuccessful strategy of accusing Sanders of sexism the Hillary camp tried in 2016, you, like the rest of the NYT Op-Ed Department really need to step outside your gated community once in a while.
3
Warren would definitely make the best president of the lot. I would love to see her debate Herr Trump directly, because her sheer decency, intelligence, integrity, and femininity would all be to her advantage. Trump would be nasty phony, and she would be decent and smart.
3
Too many nutty ideas and too little black support. End of story for Liz.
2
Now that Bernie's gone after her, I'm all in for warro!
2
"Let's you and him fight," said the third-grader.
NY TIMES op-ed writers and their readership are a tightly knit group....call it preaching to the choir. Even Warren will be to "moderate" for the leftist wing of the party.
Warren can’t beat Trump
5
And as a Native American she will get all that vote. I will bet there is Latino ancestor there also.
“Pregnant Pocahontas 2020” ?
Don’t think so.
3
How are you saying she is the unity candidate when in the course of 48 hours she alienated every Bernie supporter? And then in nearly the same breath, you say Bernie and his supporters hurt Clinton's '16 run. Real square peg - round hole narrative you're forcing here.
2
So glad you are speaking out on this, Michelle. So many of us, especially women, feel she has been struggling mainly because the more staid and male dominated press have not given her the respect or legitimacy she deserves.
She is more than qualified, has worked harder than any of her male counterparts, and would make an excellent visionary leader. And what we badly need now is someone bold and competent with a cool head and a warm heart such as Warren,.
It is urgent that we address the climate issues, rampant income inequality, and all the race and gender issues we are facing and we cannot neglect or ignore them no longer. On all of those issues, plus many more, she has a good and well thought out plan to address them.
We need to continue to encourage and support her as she is the most exciting candidate we have running.
5
I would call this "disagreement" or sniping and the outrage it caused a tempest in a teapot. Its newspeople bored or annoyed with two candidates who have, so far, refrained from attacking each other. We all knew it would not last and confict is actually a good thing. It brings out the best ideas. A brokered convention, if it happens is just fine with me.
However if the DNC engineers the primary and convention to a favored candidate like it did the last time it will be the end of the Democratic Party.
1
@Gary Valan That old myth of the DNC engineering the primaries. No. Clinton won significantly among rank and file Democrats, the super-delegates refrained from going against the rank and file... The Democrats chose a Democrat. It was amazing how well Sanders did, as an outsider, and he shifted the party significantly to the left, which was great! If only he had been a Democrat all along! But no, there was no conspiracy against him. And his result might have ended up very similar to HRC's
I find Warren to be increasingly worrying as a candidate because she has a tendency to opportunistically latch on to click-bait-y social trends like ‘I’m a Native American’, a campaign store coffee mug that reads ‘Billionaire’s tears’, the ‘big structural Bailey’ thing that was really quite off-putting, and now the ‘Sanders is a sexist’ motif her proxies are pushing on the internet (who is now retracting this strategy, as she is now facing major backlash).
She is a liability.
5
I wished in 2016 that Warren had run. I still do. She was my pick this time around from the beginning, but my support is starting to falter. Part of my disaffection has been over policy, but even more, if she wants to be the "unity" candidate, she could pursue unity. Her attack on Buddigieg at the last debate was disingenuous and he actually presented more of a unity based response than she did. Her recent scrapes with Sanders also shows a willingness to appeal to cry foul just to win votes. C'mon Sen. Warren. I know you can do better. You have in the past.
1
"I will argue...she has the best chance of bringing the Democratic Party together. Warren’s...argument that she is the unity candidate is correct."
"Unity candidate"? Seriously?
Three weeks before IA, at a moment Sanders is surging and was the IA frontrunner, and Warren is sinking in polls...
...at this moment, the former-Clinton-consultant-driven Warren campaign leaks a story that repeats Clinton's 2016 anti-Sanders sexism playbook?
And Warren is - surprise surprise - 'drawn out' by reporters and supports this claim...but adds, she doesn't want to talk about it anymore...
And Warren tweets to reporter Ryan Grim the release and timing was not intentional...but...doesn't account for how it 'just slipped out' at this moment...
[https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1216925973259546624]
And this is a "unity" strategy? Really???
2
Congratulations, Michelle, for admitting your conflict of interest. It seems clear, though, that hasn't stopped you from going out of your way to gush on Warren and trash Bernie. (And I say this as a Warren supporter.)
Also, please spare us your melodramatic doubts about a woman being able to win the election. Hillary beat Trump by nearly 3,000,000 votes. And if she hadn't relentlessly played the gender card, she might have won in the Electoral College as well. Don't blame Bernie.
4
Warrren is brilliant, but not yet a great candidate. She has lost me a couple of times with "Pete's wine cave" and "Bernie doesn't think a woman can win" which are astonishingly deflating in what should be a comfortable confidence emanating from her. Bernie's not my favorite, but he's not petty. Klobuchar isn't as visionary, but her self assurance makes people comfortable. And Mayor Pete has definitely got it. Biden is just too old.
Anybody but Trump.
23
"Voters" aged 18-29 are too busy sitting in restaurants Instagramming their gluten-free swill to actually get out the vote. They moan, they influence, they whine; they don't vote. They also don't understand the Electoral College. Please stop shoving a candidate down our throats who ticks all the boxes on your Berkeley/Cambridge/Brooklyn wish lists and just give us someone who wins Pennsylvania.
@Blair According to the Census Bureau 46% of eligibles in that age group voted in 2016; that's many multiples of the number by which Clinton won the popular vote. Age stereotypes, like most stereotypes, are ridiculous.
2
By what shade of your imagination is Warren a unity candidate?
3
Don’t think so. The only way Warren gets my vote is if she wins the nomination. I’m voting for Klobichar.
There is a reason why Trump went after Biden in the infamous phone call to the Ukraine.
He is afraid of him.
Biden is the better choice.
Democrats do a beautiful job of cannibalizing their own. Bernie has a HUGE ego that isn't about to take a back seat to anyone, especially a woman. Who's the real sexist in this race?? For all the reasons articulated in this article, Elizabeth Warren would realize a huge victory over Trump both in the popular vote AND the electoral college. Let's get behind her!!
2
Trying to pick a candidate based on who you think has the best chance of winning is a fool's errand at best. Have we learned nothing from the election of Trump? Who saw that coming? And you think you can predict -- or worse, control -- the outcome of the next election?
One lesson worth learning from the right, though, is their commitment to their "ideals" (such as they are). You don't hear folks on the right struggling over who can win. They pick the person they like. Period. They don't wring their hands over who people on the left might like. They don't choose the person who will most satisfy their political opponents. From a political perspective, picking Trump was stupid. There was no way he would win. But they picked him, anyway, just because they liked him. And here we are.
The Dems do exactly the opposite. I have heard more people than I can count -- a lot of them women -- tell me they like Warren, but don't think a woman can win, so they will vote for Biden. I have yet to talk to anyone who actually thinks Biden would be a good president. If everyone who actually prefers Warren would just vote for her, she would run away with it.
Nominating the person you think your opponent will like rather than the person you like is the surest path to losing. Republicans are not going to choose a moderate Dem in the general. They are going to choose the Republican.
3
Michelle, I am a big fan of yours, but this piece is clearly biased by your husband's role in Warren's campaign. Honestly, given that qualifier, I'm surprised your editors allowed this to be published. Warren is far from being a unifier. In fact, she regularly vilifies "millionaires and billionaires and the big corporations", and her dominant mode is "fighting". Warren continues to be evasive on health care. The policies she advocates will cost many trillions, and most economists seem to agree that her projected revenues won't pay for them. All she says is that they are "wrong". Despite her Oklahoma roots and thousands of selfies, Warren comes off as elitist and preachy, issuing diktats that were incubated in refined Harvard public policy circles. It is precisely because she is divisive that I don't support her.
3
"[Warren's] nomination would offer the best hope of bringing together the party’s warring factions."
Right - 3 weeks before IA, as Sanders is surging and Warren is falling...she has evidently OK'd her former-Clinton-consultant campaign managers to leak a year-old, second-hand account of something Sanders is unlikely to have said - positioning her to be 'forced to' confirm it?
And yet Warren is the "unity candidate"? Really????
2
I'm guessing she doesn't have the Native American vote.
2
Excellent column as always.
It really got me thinking, though: if I were a woman and made $100,000 a year less than certain writers did, would I be more swayed by Warren's policies and theory of change, or those of Sanders? And would I care more about the idea of "unifying a political party" that hasn't been responsive to my needs, or a candidate that promotes a vision directly speaking to my interests, regardless of what silly identifier is next to her/his/their name?
Just racking my brain thinking about this. Perhaps if I made more money the answer would be obvious. Better try harder!
1
Not a single "Times Pick" here was from a reader supporting Bernie, who is surging in the polls, and the best candidate for real change. However, the media, including Ms. Goldberg, continue to smear and misrepresent his movement. I wonder if in 2008, when Hillary balked at supporting Obama, Goldberg would have been so dismissive of her withholding of her support had she supported Hillary in that primary.
Hillary didn't lose because of Bernie, who had every right to run and ran a clean campaign about the issues, not a smear campaign against Hillary.
She lost because the Democratic Party has turned its back on working people for the last forty years, helping to decimate Union power and never advancing the promise of universal healthcare.
She lost because she didn't stand for anything.
2
Sanders is not even a Democrat. He uses the party for his own ends.
Actually, with Medicare for All, it would be Pete who would be the Party unifier, not the scratchy Ms. Warren.
1
All the candidates need to start attacking Trump more and each other less.
2
The folks who are comparing Warren to McGovern are OLD! 1972 ain't 2020.
Everything has changed!
This outrageous example of poor journalism on CNN's part by publishing an "annonymous account'' of an unverified private conversation effectively translates them into a device for the Warren campaign, and given Sanders record, just resonates loud and clear as political smear job loud and clear. Itemphasizes what is so missing in the 3rd estate today when the become willing pawns of propaganda instead of attempting to sift out the truth..
Well argued, and you have me convinced 100%.
1
I don't trust her. She's already backtracked on Medicare for All and the whole "native American" debacle was disingenuous. It's clear she did it to gain a foot up. The over-earnestness of her manner strikes me as false. I'll take Bernie any day--he truly believes in what he says and doesn't back down.
31
I think Warren can unify people across the heartland by concentrating on dissolving any learning blockages that they may have regarding the fine details of tax avoidance and income inequality. She is the candidate to do this---she is fiery about it and this should be her go-to issue.
She should not worry about talking down to people. She should pointedly speak in details and not grey stumps. I think people are worried about "social programs" and their pockets, not realizing that this country loses hundreds of billions of dollars a year in tax avoidance. If they realized that the fine line from pain to comfort can be crossed by these coffers, and that it has nothing to do with "welfare", then maybe, just maybe they can tell 2 friends, and then they can tell 2 friends all about shell companies, tax havens and the egregious downward spiral of the wealthy's tax responsibility.
I have been lower income all my life, and although I have resided in cites, I am red hot angry at these issue and I think that others like me should be too, no matter where they live. After all it has mainly been GOP policy of quick wealth that were the reason for the death of many of their jobs.
2
I think Warren would make a great president. However, I fear that she won't be able to beat Trump. From everything I know, Biden stands the best shot at beating trump. Therefore, even though I might prefer a President Warren to a President Biden, I cannot support her for the nomination.
1
America, where the son of a rich real estate mogul is seen as "the hope of the working man" and the daughter of a middle class family from Oklahoma is, well, not. Where a man who declared bankruptcy multiple times and stiffed his contractors is a "great businessman" and the woman who created the Consumer Financial Protection Agency is viewed as not understanding finance. Where the man whose administration is not defending the ACA is going to provide healthcare for everyone with no plan, and the woman with a detailed plan is ripped apart over it. How did we get here?
3
Misogynism. And a press corps that beats stupid details to death, ignores the big picture and continues to claim false equivalency (as in, both parties/candidates do it — wrong!).
1
I don't think Sanders' script was an attack on Warren's supporters. It was a claim about the width of her support.
The question to consider is whether it was accurate.
The script I saw also called for giving reasons against any other candidate that a voter was backing. None of them especially derogatory.
It's a contest. Any candidate needs to explain why they're the best choice but it's completely legitimate to criticize others.
Certain kinds of criticism could be considered off-limits. I
have yet to see any such from any of the Democratic candidates.
Trump won't be using kid gloves. Nothing wrong with our candidates mixing it up a bit as long as there are no low blows.
4
The only thing Warren will unite is Trump's reelection chances. Win the White House. That's the Big Plan & Idea! But not with Elizabeth Warren.
1
The writer is out of touch. Warren nomination would assure 4 more years of Trump. Get out of NYC, stop talking to Iowa democratic caucus participants or pampered NH voters; go to Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania (or anywhere in the Midwest) and talk to people who voted for Obama and Trump. I can assure you none of them are interested in President Warren.
7
@Joe - you nailed that right on the head!
1
Warren, my Senator, has a reputation that is well deserved for being divisive and self-serving.
Whether it is creating the fiction of her identity up until she was 38 years old, or failing to reveal her consulting ties to vulture law firms and large corporations.
She is a fraud.
As a liberal Democrat I would write in the name of my dog before I would vote for her.
And, no I do not believe that four more years of Trumpian crazy will destroy America. However, bringing 40-50 trillion dollars of debt down on the heads of the next three or four generations would.
3
Except, Bernie is not a democrat, Elizabeth is.
2
She has a platform, and also solid and detailed plans to achieve her goals. Most politicians have just one or the other
1
Have you even looked at Pete Buttigieg? His entire campaign has been built on unity, and he practices what he preaches. Pete never instigates attacks on his competitors, never.
But he will forcefully defend himself from false allegations hurled at him by them, including Warren’s hypocritical and dishonest attacks about his fundraising, the same fundraising tactics she used for her Senate own campaign. Millions of dollars from that campaign have funded her current presidential run. And you believe she’s a uniter? I think not. If she’s nominated, I will vote for her. Of course. But my expectation for the future under her presidency would be more division.
Pete is rebuilding our big tent every day of his campaign, welcoming everyone to the table and even reaching out to his detractors to have respectful discussions. His calm demeanor, empathy, and commitment to raising up everyone are what’s needed to unify this country in the post-Trump era.
11
While I prefer Warren, I have come to realize she would be crushed in the general election.
Yes, she would have an absolute lock on the white, urban, Volvo with a Dartmouth sticker driving, NPR-listening, earnestly ideological liberal, but not too many others. As Bernie's script correctly states, she's "bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.”
Bernie, on the other hand, is a progressive who could add many disaffected, non-ideological, un-woke, middle class types, those who don't study blue collar workers, but are blue collar workers. He would still have a steep hill to climb, but not as steep as Warren's.
3
She is indeed. Just like McGovern and Humphrey and Dukakis. All three untied the Democratic party’s various factions behind a single demonstrably unelectable candidate. Here we go again.
5
Reading over some of these comments, I am reminded how the centrist or right of center Democrats always feel that they are the ones with the moral high ground, while criticizing more progressive voters as demanding "a purity test" and "petulant." Their opinion of the more progressive candidates themselves is that they are far too extreme, hated by everyone they know and aren't even Democrats. They then end their comments by saying that if someone like Bernie is the nominee, they will just stay home.
Funny how they don't see the hypocrisy or criticizing Sanders or Warren voters for wanting their candidate to have big bold ideas, yet then take a petulant stand if that person is the nominee. Also just because these rightwing Centrist may know only like minded people, who also hate Bernie, doesn't mean that everyone does. It just means that in that person's small circle, this is the case. Yet they'll never admit that because they think only they are right,an attitude they accuse Sanders' supporters of having.
Finally they rant that Sanders isn't even a Democrat, although he caucuses with the Democrats and votes with the Democrats, except when he wants more progressive bills passed. Isn't Bernie, with his ideals, more like FDR, than Manchin or West Virginia, who often votes against the environment and with Trump or the Congressman from Chicago, who is against any and all abortions, and votes accordingly. What makes them more of a Democrat than Sanders?
3
@Miriam A perfect summary of the views of the Henry Clay Democrats - those who would rather be right than be president (or elect one).
1
How could the candidate who has said that more than half the party should leave it and become Republicans because they don't agree with her be the unifying candidate?
Perhaps it should be a candidate who has actually tried to, you know, unify people.
3
I believe Warren actually would make a superb president. We have major social structural problems in this country and she is best suited to take them on. We have not had a more fearless president since FDR - "we have nothig to fear but fear itself."
And, indeed, the only thing holding back electability of Warren is the fear of electability. Fear not; just vote for her.
6
To call Democrats in any way "socialist" is a spin by the GOP. The Democrats are maybe Socialdemocrats or Liberals but not Socialists. Cuba is socialist and the former USSR was but not the Dems. The GOP managed to entirely change the meaning of those political movements. Warren would be a successful Socialdemocrat if she were a European politician.
1
Senator Warren seems to have the best ability to focus on issues and to explain complex ideas in terms that are easily understood. However, every candidate is a better human being than the president. We need to support whomever achieves the Democratic Party nomination.
4
With the reputation she has for very liberal approaches to policy, I’d say she would be a long shot to win the election. Her policies might motivate young voters but her dimmed prospects might deflate moderates. Not what I call a unity candidate.
Until reading this column my support of Ms Warren was wavering as electability began to influence my values. The main focus is not to get rid of the plague which has overtaken our politics rather to stand with principles which, save those of Ms Warren and Ms Klobuchar, do not align well with the other candidates.
Supporting these women with their feet firmly planted and minds set but open, as opposed to men who still hold the might makes right card in their deck, leave Ms Warren and Ms Klobuchar as the only ticket the Democrats can offer which is not following the same dessicated thought process which has taken the world in which our children and theirs to the edge of destruction.
With only one vote and secure moral values, abandoning either betrays both.
This op-ed is flawed for one basic reason : It has been well noted that it was Hillary Clinton who tried to scuttle Sanders's campaign right from the start.
As publicly alleged by Donna Brazile, the former chair of DNC, Hillary Clinton wanted absolute control over the party's finances and strategy over the entire Democratic campaign events during the last election.
So it is actually Hillary Clinton that ensured that the DNC did not act as a neutral arbiter of the Democratic primary, favoring Clinton in its selection of debate times and fundraising.
There is no resentment about what Sanders did to Hillary. On the other hand, there was a lot of resentment that Hillary displayed a sense of needless entitlement that kept Sanders's supporters away from her voting for her.
4
I supported Warren very early in the campaign. Then she kept saying terrible and horrific things in debates (we don't want PhDs to immigrate to the US? Seriously?) and I realized I cannot vote for her. Now she just talks about being a woman all the time. As someone who was kicked out of womanhood by the LGBT movement, I have no reason to vote for someone just because she identifies as female.
Hardly a "unity" candidate.
1
Perhaps Ms. Goldberg ought to spend a little time in the Midwest and talk to the folks here. Then, she would understand that the preachy, former Republican (until she was in her forties) would be the worst candidate to win the battleground states.
4
I agree. After reading the NY Times interview of Elizabeth Warren, I find it totally obvious that Warren's intellect, determination and experience in Senate battles far outshines the other remaining candidates. Elizabeth Warren has the qualifications we need in the U.S.A. Presidency. She cares more, works more, knows more. She has thought through environmental and health problems and her plans matter. I am comfortable with hope for change with Elizabeth Warren. Our future will be more, better and possible with her at our helm.
3
Maybe a different perspective?
The argument here is based on a false premise. It is just assumed that "unity" is good. It is, but I'd also argue that it is actually not that important. Winning the Presidency is purely a matter of electoral college math.
Unified or divided, Democrats simply will win Oregon. And Republicans simply will win Wyoming. Etc. This is a polarized nation. In fact in probably 80% - 85% of the states everyone already knows who the winner will be.
This election, like the last one, will not be someone that "unites" the party at the nation level, but rather will be won by whomever takes that small handful of swing states that are in play. So the real question is - who can win them?
And in that respect, I'm not sure Warren is all that strong. The winner will need states in particular in the south east, and northern Midwest. Michigan? Usually solidly Democratic, in fact every election since 1992 - until Trump. She'd need it back.
But it has unionization levels above the national norm, many of who's members have really good medical benefits from labor negotiations. Unions play a huge roll in the day to day work of organizing and getting out the vote - and telling them they are going to toss out their hard won benefits and just participate in medicare for all is not exactly the way to enthuse them.
Just an example - point is, "who can unite the national party" is an irrelevant question. "Who can win the swing states" is the only question that matters.
2
A 66 yo white male professional, I initially supported Warren because she seemed to share Bernie's good ideas without Bernie's baggage. However, lately I've been thinking Klobuchar might get my vote because she is brilliant, experienced, and has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to win over many voters in red-leaning Midwest districts. Pair her with someone like Booker, Andrew Gillum, or Stacey Abrams as VP to promote black voter turnout and you may have the recipe not only for victory over Trump but maybe even taking back the Senate.
3
Elizabeth Warren is a good explainer. And she wants to be transparent. But I feel that she made the same mistake that Hillary did on her campaign-- She has plans for everything, and she expects people to go to her website to read them. Some of the voters may not have regular web-access, and most ( even though college educated ones) have no interest in sitting down on their computer after a long day of work or housework and read policy papers. That leaves the retirees or Boomers who have time on their hands to read about Medicare for all ( But most already qualified for Medicare)
So she is left with the Press offering their own 2 minute elevator speeches with critiques on her policy positions.
What the Donald did in 2016 and what Joe Biden is doing in some way is to sell himself and what voters think they would stand for.
Supporters of Ms. Warren recommend we love her because she is the candidate of Big Bold Ideas. One of the BBI's is having the taxpayers pay off the student debt of those making $250,000. Good luck selling that to those many neighbors of mine making less than $30,000. I'll add a third B: Big Bold Bad Ideas.
4
Members of the democratic party are some of the best serfs that we have. They know that the wealthy will be angry with them, and perhaps move to a foreign country leaving us to fend for ourselves, if the democrats nominate someone who might help the people. So, they will nominate a moderate democrat or what can also be known as a republican. Because the last thing the serfs of this country want is an angry overlord class.
The people of the US don't deserve better. They are very gullible and believe in all kinds of right wing propaganda. I for one would like the people to get what they deserve and that is more Trump and more Russian/GOP oligarch beat down.
I can't wait until the oligarch wars.
Yes, it will unify Democrats because another four years of Trump is our collective nightmare.
3
I am also a Warren supporter, given money, and speak on her behalf when anyone will listen. And, I also doubt she will have the Democratic nomination, because our country has demonstrated, time and again, it’s not ready to elect a woman president. The problem isn’t the candidate. The problem is the electorate. Women voters are 51% of the voters, yet, they continually support candidates who favor bloated and wasteful military and Pentagon budgets, insufficient public school funding, and kick the can down the road infrastructure policies. Also, support politicians who favor international corporations, and the finance industry to the detriment of the American consumer. They’ll even vote for a sexual predator because they latch on to his clean the swamp lies, when any due diligence demonstrates he is the swamp. Of course all these less than stellar traits are reflected in the men voting, too. And, we have yet to see young voters turn out in large enough numbers to put these hypocrites out of office.
Believe me, I’m ready to future not to be dictated by the past. Hope is the engine that fuels our country. I’m just tired of the constant disappointment.
1
I've stated before in these comments: in person Warren comes across as warm, likable, caring and intelligent. My dream ticket would be Warren/Buttigieg. Sanders and his 'followers' fill me with anxiety.
2
More than anything, this piece comes across as a classic instance of one's predisposition towards a certain candidate informing the arguments pulled together to make a case for that candidate, rather than dispassionate consideration of various arguments for and against different candidates on the matter at issue preceding the piece's conclusion on it.
Warren having the best chance of bringing Democrats together and the unity candidate? Are you kidding? For all her many supporters see in her, others see her manner as personally unbearable and her ideology as problematic at best, together probably making her more vulnerable to Trump’s unique way of going after opponents than anyone.
1
Elizabeth Warren is my senator, and I have great respect for her. She has run a highly substantive and progressive campaign. That said, I have little confidence that the Democratic Party will unify around her, and I believe she will take the party down to defeat if she is the nominee. The response to the nihilistic Trump presidency is not a rapid swing to the left, but rather a center left return to something approximating normalcy. Her election would not achieve that--and the gridlock would continue.
3
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly, "Pogo." I still feel that the biggest problem facing the Democrats are the Democrats themselves. Trying to appeal to the "true believers" of progressive socialism on one end, to moderates who range from liberals to Obama-Trump independents on the other is one thing. Then they have to negotiate the "minefield" between identity politics and economic policies. A party that tries to be "everything for everybody" runs the risk of becoming "nothing for nobody." Against all this is the potential of four more years of Trump, should the Senate not convict him. It's a tall order to fill for whomever emerges at the end of the process.
As for Ms. Warren? She may well get the nod, but her ideas (or Sanders too, for that matter) are very far left and will have to fight a hurricane strength onslaught from the Republican side to win in November. The thing the Democrats need to avoid is make 2020 seem like a repeat of 2016. Any candidate who makes Trump, even with all we know about him now, still seem to be the "lesser of the evils" may give it a good shot, but it will be long odds for success.
1
Being able to unify the party and its supporters should be one of the most important criterium for all of these candidates. But I question whether Senator Warren’s plans for so many topics are skewed too far to the left, meaning that by unification she needs to be a bit more moderate. Of course it’s important to understand that just because she or any candidate proposes anything, it’s up to the Congress to enact legislation to make it so. Trump found this out the hard way as have other Chief Executives.
I hope that one question at tonight’s debate is asked of every participant: “Obviously only one of you will be the candidate selected at the Democratic Convention. If it’s not you, will you wholeheartedly support the party’s nominee to win back the White House beginning in 2021?” Only then will you know that the ultimate candidate will have the ability to pull all of this together; is that for Senator Warren to do or can any of these people (or Mayor Bloomberg) do?
This is the voice of sanity. I hope it really gets out there.
1
Unity is not the answer. We need to win. Warren appeals to high likelihood Dem voters like Michelle Goldberg while Bernie Sanders expands the franchise. So do we want to win or do we want to be "unified"?
3
I wholeheartedly recommend Elizabeth Warren for President. She is a candidate who has learned by doing, that is, learned to campaign successfully from her successes and failures.
She learned by doing to advocate progressive and Democratic values first as a Law Professor; then Consumer Financial Protection Bureau head; then MASS Senator.
I cannot say the same of most other candidates.
She can win. She can be the first woman President.
My Presidential candidate choices, Harris, Castro, Booker that I’ve donated to ended their quests. Tho’ Sanders who I donated and respect remains, I’m going with Elizabeth. I’m enthusiastic about that!!
Getting the vote in November out from non voters, infrequent voters, disillusioned voters and voters who are being screened by Block the Vote efforts are well worth the efforts.
1
What ever happened to the word "allegedly". There is absolutely no proof that Sanders said anything derogatory to Elizabeth Warren. In fact there are numerous recordings, going back decades, of Sanders stating that a woman could be the president.
It's so disappointing seeing the media exploit this blunder and fail to do the due diligence that is expected of journalists.
8
this should be obvious but this paper has generally held the line that she's more "radical" than Bernie Sanders. Both of whom are closer to FDR than Obama but are in no way "radical". Anyone being honest about Warren & Sanders would have to realize that as presidents they would likely have to deal with a generally moderate, centrist democratic house and a reactionary, preposterous, obstructionist senate so what could they really do? Set the various federal agencies upright again after being run for 4 years by wolves? Yes. Who do you think is detail oriented and big enough wonk to do that extremely well? Elizabeth Warren.
1
I'm not looking for a unity candidate. I'm looking for the person with the best shot of beating Trump. Right now, that person is Joe Biden.
Bernie Sanders also has a better shot of beating Trump than Elizabeth Warren.
Elections have consequences. Electoral votes count, not unity.
3
Now it's time for everyone to put on either their 'expert hat' or whip out their crystal ball and make all sorts of predictions, as if they are facts.
How about instead, if we all just let the voters decide on who they want as the nominee and then remind voters what we're up against (4 more disastrous years of Trump) and then stress that everyone "Vote Blue No Matter Who", otherwise the alternative could be the end of Our Democracy.
3
I agree that she's the closest of anyone to unite the party.
It's a real shame Bernie has become so polarizing. He gets voters in the most unlikely places: from our youngest voters as a septuagenarian, from former Trump voters, from non-voters, ... not all of them will port with an endorsement to even Warren let alone Biden or Buttigieg but Bernie's candidacy is moot if the suburbs massively stay home or vote Trump. I wish more people traveled to Europe.
2
One of the ways to unite the Democratic Party would involve Ms. Warren publicly accusing the candidate Bernie Sanders of believing that a woman cannot be President.
That should help party unity.
2
Biden is more likely to defeat Trump. The best ticket would be Biden and Klobuchar. In my opinion.
3
Personally, I really like Elizabeth Warren and I hope you are right that the Democrats will unite behind her. I have always been a progressive and have rarely gotten to vote for a progressive candidate for president since 1968, my first election. What I worry about with Warren is the touch of prim self righteousness she sometimes seems to project. But I think she is enough of a political pragmatist to be the president for all Americans. And I would really, really, really like to see a woman as gifted as she is elected president of the US. It's time to break the glass ceiling.
3
So many Republicans are definitely afraid of E. Warren and Bernie. So are corporate and limousine Dems who want to keep their big tax cuts. Change is coming. Get used to it. It is time to share. I have money and I am ready to do it. Go Warren and Bernie.
7
Every time I read one of these NYT OpEd pieces, I recall the perhaps apocryphal story of the New York socialite who predicted McGovern’s win over Nixon, because all her friends were voting for him.
61
@James Anderson Have you heard of this thing called polling?
1
@James Anderson: Every time? Since 1972? That anecdote must have made a big impression!
3
Warren is proposing to saddle the tax payers with over a trillion dollars of debt by forgiving indebted students fifty thousand dollars, simply because the Department of Education is already authorized todo so. What happened to Congress’ duty to manage the people’s’ money responsibly? Can any politician erase public debt for her political aspirations? Can any political hack occupying the Department of Education seat merely follow this particular politician?
1
Education loans are govt loans and Betsy DeVos has done nothing, nothing, nothing to help students manage their debt. She needs to be removed and hopefully soon.
Most moderates would never vote for her or Sanders. Unlike Sanders she also lacks sincerity and authenticity and that’s why her poll numbers have been falling for months.
5
Unfortunately, Michelle, winning the presidency is going to take more than bringing democrats together. It's going to take bringing independents and some moderate republicans into the fold.
And this Elizabeth Warren cannot do.
7
No, she is not.
She doesn't listen, she doesn't wait to hear the full question, she has never run anything but a class room, and she is so abrasive that President Obama did not nominate her to be the head of the department she created. She is just too abrasive.
And unlike Tip O'Neil, she doesn't believe all politics is local. Of the three Congressional representative that I am in touch with, she is the least responsive, as in not at all, there is never a live person answering the phone and she is not attentive to any needs west of Worcester.
And then there is her willingness to accuse others of what she herself has done. To wit, fundraisers with the well heeled voters - nope, not this politician, not now, not ever.
And if, by some chance - a rare one - she does win, the Democrats will lose a Senate seat - Baker is republican and he will fill that seat with a republican. So then she becomes just a sitting duck for incoming criticism because she won't have the votes to accomplish anything.
No.
5
Warren has opined that she doesn't need Congress to forgive student loan debt. Without any debate or discussion, she will sign an EO--presto, the US taxpayer is on the hook for another trillion dollars, and those who actually honored their loan obligations will be hopping mad. She knows how to fix things, you see, knows it all. Just like Trump. Enough of that garbage.
I was surprised to hear a decades-long friend, always a progressive Dem, recently express her dislike of Warren. She also mentioned she had been at a dinner party of about a dozen dedicated Dems where shouting broke out about Warren and Sanders, and it wasn't about how wonderful they are. One attendee even threatened to vote FOR Trump if either were the nominee. Doesn't sound like much of a unity candidate.
Warren lacks humility, is nauseatingly "woke" (evidently we have to ensure transgendered inmates are segregated in prison), and her endless referencing of the gazillion selfies she has taken, as if that somehow qualifies her for the presidency, is insufferable. IOW, she is unlikable--and unelectable.
Usually agree more than disagree with you, Ms. Goldberg, but you are wrong on this one. And with four more disastrous years of Trump as the price, we can't afford to be wrong.
4
We need a centrist, not a redistributionist, candidate.
4
Warren committed political suicide when she advocated for a wealth tax. In a country where everyone believes that they are just one smart business move away from making big money, this is a non-starter.
Her hostility towards business is another non-starter. So no I don't think she's a uniter, she's head in the clouds idealouge.
4
I assume that other commenters farther down the list than I've scrolled have made this point, but I'll say that Donald Trump is such a danger to the country and the world that I hope strongly that virtually all Democrats will rally around the nominee, no matter who it is, because everyone's "worst" Democratic candidate still would be a much better president than Donald Trump. I strongly agree with Ms. Goldberg that Senator Warren shows the signs of making the best president of the bunch. And I agree that we can't know who would run most strongly against Donald Trump. Whoever the Democratic candidate is will face a volcanic eruption of lies and slurs. What concerns me now is the way that mainstream news coverage of the campaign seems to have decided that Senator Warren no longer is the flavor of the month and is irrelevant, even though she polls within the same tight group that includes Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, none of whom is treated as irrelevant. Sexism is indeed a big issue, and Elizabeth Warren will need to run an outstanding campaign to overcome it.
1
Get over it Democrats. Can't we learn anything about unity from the obeisance that Trump has wrested from his entire party?
Whoever wins the nomination will be the unity candidate. Demonizing each other now will only strengthen Trump in November. If we want to win and salvage any hope for this Republic's future, we had better ENTHUSIASTICALLY support our candidate, whether its Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, or Mickey Mouse.
Trump is a cancer and we don't have the luxury of looking for our personal favorite candidate.
3
At least you admitted your were not objective upfront. A unity candidate is hardly what I would call Warren. Vengeful, lying, say anything to be elected, change your identity(twice) she was Native American and Republican and now she is a socialist; that's her. I don't know, she does not seem like the best pick here. Actually she is most like ummm Trump!!
2
If the Dems make either Warren or Sanders the Democratic candidate Trump will win. I watch you all the time on MSNBC and read your columns and it is obvious you support Warren. But this year she is a poor choice to defeat Trump. And why should residents of Iowa and New Hampshire be the deciders as to who the Dems should support? JB
1
It’s clear that Michelle Goldberg desperately wants a woman in the White House, but to characterize Warren as the “Unity” candidate is ludicrous. Warren is as polarizing as they come and it’s one of the reasons she’ll never win a General Election.
4
I believe Elizabeth Warren can both a unite and win !
If the Democrats truly want to win in 2020, then the winning combination is:
Elizabeth Warren for President!
Cory Booker for Vice President in 2020 !
Both are extremely competent and they will carry the women vote, especially those women who didn't vote, or those who voted for Trump, the woman hater and abuser. They will bring out the the African American voters, Latino voters, progressives and the Blue Wave voters!
An unbeatable combination !
1
Two east coast “elites”. I think not.
She is simply the smartest in the race.
That will go a long way to repairing the damage.
2
Don't let corporate media play you ... they hate Sanders and will try to destroy him and his progressive policies. The sad fact is that Warren is partnering with corporate media on this ugly tactic to take out Sanders.
4
How can she be a unifyer if she resorts to Trumpian lies to "gain an edge" over her fellow candidate? Her behaviour is one not befitting a Democratic nominee.
2
Trump is the Democrats unity candidate.
4
No. She is not.
3
Really, Michelle. You need to cross the George Washington Bridge more often, and stop breathing your own oxygen.
Her defeat at the hands of Trump would be reminiscent of McGovern in 1972.
The fact that many in this thread doesn't realize this just shows how out of touch they are with most of the USA.
Biden 2020.
2
If your editorial opinion is that you prefer Warren, that's fine. The notion that she is the only one to save the Dems from factionalism is just downright ridiculous
6
I agree with every word of this. It's obvious to me that Warren would be the best president, and that she would be the best candidate to unify the Democratic party -- and I'm just not sure which Democrat would be the strongest against Trump.
Question: Why has the NYT coverage of Warren turned relentlessly negative?
1
Warren won't attract enough white, working-class Midwest voters or Black voters. Without those segments the 'unified' Democrats will lose.
38
@Richard J. Noyes
"Warren won't attract enough white, working-class Midwest voters or Black voters. Without those segments the 'unified' Democrats will lose."
A ton of evidence, from across the media spectrum, supports your claim - though I hope the point remains moot, since she seems to be falling in the polls now.
Indeed, Sanders' is expanding the Democratic base - getting low income citizens who often don't vote, including conservative Democrats and low income Republicans who support M4A.
Neither Warren's ideas nor her 'wine track' style will get those crucial voters:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/opinion/elizabeth-warren-massachusetts.html]
6
@Richard J. Noyes you know whats ironic is that you guys keep saying this but this is exactly why hillary lost, and the line was during that primary was that she was more appealing to black voters. the fact is that after obama a lot of black voters aren't actually voting for any democrat. Clinton lost the general election because of three states that she lost by a combined 7700 votes. In milwaukee alone, 7000 black voters who voted for Obama did not vote.
8
@Richard J. Noyes How do you reach that conclusion? Warren grew up white, working class (Republican no less) in the Midwest. What make you think she can't attract the very kind of people she came from?
11
I am a Warren supporter because she is the most experienced, competent, intelligent and energetic of the candidates. She is quick and would flatten Trump in a debate. She also is the least narcissistic and I have had enough of that. Bernie is a narcissist. Most of us are to some degree but he radiates the I am right, I am important, I am what you need characteristics . He proved this after losing the nomination last time. He has a minimal legislative accomplishment after so many years in office. Warren has accomplished a great deal in a short amount of time. Imagine Trump and Sanders or Trump and Warren on stage. Who bloviates without details, whom is stable, thoughtful and offers solutions? Sanders will look and sound crazy to conservatives. They will disagree with Warren but, like a good teacher, they will respect her. It may be unfair but Sanders seems too old. I hope for Warren and, yes, some reasonable white guy for the independents.
I’ve hesitated to write too much about the Democratic primary because I have a conflict of interest — my husband is consulting for Warren’s campaign.
Then don't.
3
Totally agree @Don Beene. Shouldn’t have written the column.
I noticed in the pic that accompanies the article, that she has her hand on her chest. What is that? Does it mean something? That seems to be a female thing, like be still my beating heart? Is it a feminist thing? You don't see Bernie doing that, unless he did during the heart attack.
Whatever happens, it is important that Democrats get out and vote, and that the person who gets the most votes during the primary gets to be on the ticket. The Democratic Party must never again put its thumb on the scales as it did in 2015.
I remember the sneering contempt of many pundits (and likely Democrats) during the 2015 Republican primary, when a crowded field of 17 GOP candidates took to the stage during a free-for-all debate. It was embarassing. Remember those gales of laughter when Trump emerged victorious after their long, bumpy, ugly primary? The pundits thought that any primary which resulted in a man like Trump must be broken--too populist, too much of a popularity contest, too bereft of ideas, too soundibte oriented, etc. Like many people, I also thought the GOP primary in 2015 was a farcical Gong Show, and although I despise Trump and the many sycophants who now enable him in the GOP (even though many said he was unfit for office in 2015), I will grant one thing to the Republican Party: it let the people vote. And it respected their vote, even though the Party elders hated Trump in 2015.
The equal rights amendment was first introduced in 1923. It's still not ratified. And we're considering, once again, thinking a woman -- whose only job is to reproduce, nurture and wash up -- might best a man in a presidential election? Not in America, friends. Likely, never in America.
Dear Ms. Goldberg,
I usually enjoy reading your columns. That said, I suspect you know full well that copping to a conflict of interest does not make it go away, and waiting until the 5th paragraph to mention it, after you've already started punching, is shady. Picking the most opportune moment to push your husband's client's interests, while simultaneously patting yourself on the back for not having done so until now, is also shady. In fact, this column is full of sneaky (and yes, still conflicted) shade.
Sincerely, a Warren (and Sanders) supporter.
4
@Joel Sanders
You are using a cheap attack line on EW sending a son into a private school whilst advocating for the abolition of school choice, implying that she is a hypocrite and inauthentic, which is a sexist trope. In the process misrepresenting her position.
The record needs to be set straight for everyone.
From her website: EW is not advocating for the abolition of any private school, nor is she advocating for parental right to send your kids to a private school. After all, it’s your money, and if you don’t intend to use tax-payer money for your child, who cares?
EW plan instead would re-direct public money away from charter schools (nothing to do with private schools) and back into public schools. A lot of people, unions, parents, communities have called for putting an end to charter schools which are draining money away from public schools whilst escaping public over-sight. Some candidates have had a more mixed position, like Booker, but most education specialists have come to see charter schools as a misguided conservative effort. Including the New York Times over a series of articles.
Charter schools are really not at all private schools, you see. They really just operate on public money by diverting money away from public schools. So please do not hide behind words. You want to call EW a hypocrite for the sake of it? Go ahead, it’s a free country. Just do not lie and misrepresent her position nor make personal attacks.
1
"Many believe he weakened Hillary Clinton by dragging out the primary...and then only halfheartedly rallying his fans behind her when it was over."
"[H]alfheartedly rally his fans" - no, Sanders himself ragged supporting Clinton, often facing boos and jeers when he addressed audiences made up of his own supporters:
Though if - as you write, Ms. Goldberg - former Clinton supporters are still mouthing this lie, it is perhaps not that surprising...
[https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/bernie-sanderss-hard-fight-for-hillary-clinton]
5
So much misguided, uniformed, optimism. I don't argue about Elizabeths outstanding qualities, you are all right about that. But she is not, and will not, be my candidate, when she loses the polls by Nate Cohn etc, as described by David Leonhardt, in the swing states that supported Trump. The polls of the places that should matter to the most of us, in the 6 red swing states that handed Trump the electoral colllege over the extraodinairy Hillary Clinton, when last reviewed, showed that Joe Biden beats Trump there, and Warren doesn't.
(David blogs at InconvenientNews.net.)
2
The Democrats I know will vote for anyone who is not Trump. That say they see no real difference between Sanders and Warren and can stand neither. There is a way to glib assumption about a whole lot of Democrats.
The most brilliant sleight of hand of the Warren campaign is that the "I have a plan for that" tag line in reality is "We have a plan for that", and she is more than open about this. She has embraced the best parts of her fellow competitors policy ideas and built upon them by working closely with the stakeholders of all of these policies - time and again, blowing stakeholders away with the comprehensiveness and impact of the plans.
It was telling in the last debate when Andrew Yang said that Warren was reading his book, then he offered to gift it to the other candidates. If somebody has ideas about addressing big problems in America, they have Warren's attention. The idea that Warren is a go-it-alone know it all, as some commenters espouse, belies this reality, and, frankly, is part of the sexism that women confront.
She's intent on bringing big, structural change to America, and doing so with the best that all of the Democratic Party has to offer.
Sounds like unity to me. Warren 46
902
@MC
"She's intent on bringing big, structural change to America". That is just the message that will get Donald Trump elected to a second term.
14
@MC
What does 46 mean? The argument you make for Warren’s willingness to include the ideas of others is eloquent but it is up to her, as the candidate, to demonstrate it - especially to those of us not on board. So far I don’t see it in her incessant vilification of capitalism. She has work to do.
6
@MC
Elizabeth Warren fabulously, famously and foolishly fell for Donald Trump's nicknames and slurs caricature tar trap routine. She will be wearing the ' Scarlet Letter ' P.'
While the Democratic Party won 43%, 41% and 42% of the white European American voting majority in 2008, 2012 and 2016 Presidential elections.
The notion that the American people are seeking deeply principled policy solutions to every microscopic problem is delusional.
Americans aren't motivated by political chameleons and chimeras.
Appealing to American voters emotions and hearts is far more important in turning them out on election day than going after their reason and heads.
Hope is more promising than fear.
13
Warren is a sure loser. She is anything but a unifier. She is however Michelle Goldberg's preferred candidate so Ms. Goldberg is trying to portray her as such. Why are you doing this now Ms. Goldberg rather than before? That's easy. . .Because she's now losing. . .and because she's even fallen behind Bernie and you can't stand it.
Warren's latest false accusations about Bernie reinforce her dishonesty (e. g. her claim to be "American Indian" to further her ambitions).
She also has a very shrill (and even angry) demeanor which is a turn-off. This does not work against Trump.
Despite his flaws, Biden is the only one who can beat Trump.
Stop using your column to promote a candidate who can't win.
10
I wonder why Amy Klobuchar finds no traction in this conversation. She is a very solid pragmatic voice, willing to move toward the progressive wing's goals, if not through their preferred means. I also believe she would eat Trump for breakfast with her quick ability to notice a joke in real time.
2
Warren was my first choice, but made me cringe with her "Medicare for all" plan.
I thought it was bad politics to take away even bad private insurance policies from people who were used to them and had gotten them through collective bargaining.
I thought it was bad policy when Medicare for all who want it would get us to the same place in the end, and would also put the government in competition with private enterprise in a way that would help keep government efficient, and make people aware that government can do it better than private (as it does now with Medicare.)
I also thought that even "Medicare for all who want it" will be a very hard lift to get through Congress, so why go so far when other plans could get us universal coverage. Perhaps she hopes that her far reach will bring that compromise, instead of starting off at the compromise. What ever the case, her plan is doubtful to happen so I can overlook it, but I hope she modifies her stand so that others can see the merits of all her other plans, and the good leader she can be.
3
I think the way to think about this is to recognize that our parties are not monolithic, but are, instead, coalitions or alignments. Consider Israel, for example. In that country, there is a right wing coalition that includes a large mainline Conservative party (Likud), and a number of smaller religious and nationalistic parties. The problem there is that none of the individual parties can win enough votes to govern on its own, and so there is a period of horse trading after each election in order to cobble together the majority coalition needed to govern.
Where we differ from Israel is that the political horse trading takes place before the election by way of the primary and caucus system. One way to look at Clinton’s defeat in 2016 is as an inability to build the required governing coalition. She just couldn’t get one or two tiny parties to sign on.
There’s nothing wrong with partisan factionalism prior to the convention. I’d argue that having a transparent period of political horse trading is a good thing for democracy. That horse trading serves to moderate extreme candidates who seek leadership as they strive to accommodate the various groups they’ll need to govern if they win. The good thing is that because the coalition building happens before the election, we all have a better idea of what policies we’ll get if our candidates win.
Absolutely harebrained. One short statement by Warren indicting Sanders as presumably anti-woman and then an insincere dismissal of it's mention to show that she and Sanders are on the same Progressive page. Clearly a feeble attempt to move herself to the top of the Progressive heap in the midst of slipping poll numbers. Bad politics, both strategically and morally.
For a triggered Ms. Goldberg it re-ignites the absurd Bernie Bros lie that was used to put the kibosh on Sanders in 2016 when the DNC had actually fought tirelessly to upend his campaign.
Ms. Goldberg might take note that Sanders stayed to the bitter end in that campaign because his ideas were relevant to millions of voters and gave Americans more than a few new ideas by which to navigate the future as well as an actual option to business as usual.
I've always been supportive of Elizabeth Warren and up till this moment, she may well have been my choice on the primary ballot. But this ploy (and it is a ploy) to co opt the progressive platform by throwing Sanders under the bus using a private and unwitnessed conversation as evidence of anti-female sentiment is not only contemptible but laughable in the context of Goldberg's dubbing of Warren as a "Unity Candidate".
6
It appears not even Donald Trump can unite the Democratic Party. Like the Republican Party, the Democratic Party has an establishment wing and a populous wing. Although, it might me more accurate to say that the Republican Party had an establishment wing and a populous wing because the latter has taken over the party. The populous wing of the Democratic Party is also trying to take over but it appears without success at the moment as the establishment wing continues to have broad support. I would say Warren is part of the populous wing that appeared as a result of the economic crash of 2008 and was manifested as the Occupy Wall Street movement. This movement morphed into the Bernie Sanders campaign in 2016. It has now been divided between Sanders and Warren with Sanders maintaining the purists and Warren being backed by those who are a little more pragmatic. Both wings of the Democratic Party should leave the convention untied for the sake of keeping US democracy intact if nothing else but strong emotions may make that impossible.
Here is the problem. Conceding the possibility that all groups on the Democratic Party will or could ever be unified( and I believe its impossible given the all or nothing attitude of some factions), one still must win an election to ever do anything. Therefore, that should be the test- not unification.
1
Agree, we need the systemic changes she espouses, to get the money and rot out of our government. I believe she will listen to those who choose to keep their personal insurance, even though it's true that many have been denied or basnkript with it.
1
All any of us can do is vote for the candidate we most like. Trying to crystal ball electability is impossible. What we can do, however, is not be so angry if our favorite loses that we don't get behind the Democratic candidate. Vote for you favor in the primary and then vote for the nominee whoever that is.
3
Lots of commenters on this column note that Bernie Sanders also inspires and brings out his supporters.
It may be true that there are a few more die-hard Berners, and they are a bit more passionate than Warren supporters.
But most other Democratic primary voters also like Warren.
Most of the Democrat voters who don't actively support Bernie dislike him, on a continuum from mild dislike to a hatred that blazes like a million suns.
I do appreciate your honesty, Michelle, in telling us that your husband is consulting for her campaign. But I'd sooner doubt the integrity of Bret Stephens or Nicholas Kristof than I'd ever doubt yours. You make a solid case here.
However, although I once viewed Warren as an acceptable alternative to Bernie, she's taken to outright lying to save her campaign. And it's a sad lie. Who would believe that Bernie Sanders told her a woman could not be elected president?
Beyond preposterous. But let's suppose he did. Why would you cry to press about it? It seems a small point, I know, but what you look for is how candidates behave under stress. Her response to the president's Pocahontas nonsense was to get a DNA test. And now we get the equivalent of Harris's "I was that little girl" when Sanders takes the lead.
4
Are you joking? She actively pushes centrists away from the democratic party.
4
A vote for this unity candidate will generate a personalized computer thank you from Trump. As great as Warren may be she will not beat Trump. Put aside wishful thinking and vote to end the madness. Climate change can't wait another four years. It's not all about your medical care rather its about the irreparable damage Trump does daily.
1
Many people are too lazy to actually listen to what Elizabeth Warren has to say. It's much easier to focus on a solitary pet issue, and yes, even Democrats are guilty of this. As far as health care goes, you may find that more doctors would accept "Medicare for All" than your current plan (as most doctors accept Original Medicare as it now stands) Just think of how healthier society would be with better coverage, and in a time of an epidemic, endemic or pandemic, it could be priceless.
Warren can unite us on the issue of tax evasion/avoidance, which costs us hundreds of billions of dollars every year, and this is not even including what we can get from a proper wealth tax.
I do hope that Bloomberg doesn't worm his way into the nomination by there being a contested convention, therefore enabling his superdelegates to reign supreme. However, I'd vote for pizza rat over trump at this point.
I am ambivalent about Sentor Warren. She would probably be a good President, but she suffers from Dukakis syndrome. She's too smart and not especially exciting. That said, I would gladly support her and vote for her were she the nominee.
Where I really diverge from Ms. Goldberg is her need to resurrect the mythology surrounding Hillary Clinton's loss. It was not Sanders' fault and perpetuating that "falsehood" is counterproductive and just a tad snarky.
3
It is the fault of his supports who voted for Trump to “bring on the revolution”. How did that work out?
1
Pres. Elizabeth Warren sounds great she would be a great leader to follow she might be too far to the left but she could be the candidate of our time. Sen. Elizabeth Warren had health before the other candidates running for the Democratic presidential election.
She's very much cavalier Elizabeth Warren she was send Pres. Donald Trump packing and heading to jail.
All white male dominant society can she peek their interests her road is straight forward about health care, education, world affairs, and taxes.
Elizabeth Warren is a lot smarter than President Donald Trump gives himself to be an Ingrid old man a painted face like the Indians of the western plains. Do remember Pres. Donald Trump called Elizabeth Warren names Pocahontas but there's one name for Pres. Donald Trump lying BEAR.
This one thing the President Elizabeth Warren can do is unify a nation in crisis.
There are no "warring" factions within the Democratic Party. Ms. Goldberg is exaggerating. There is a conservative wing that has dominated the party since Bill Clinton, and an ascendant liberal wing that doesn't want a repeat of the dithering disappointment of Barack Obama. There's certainly tension, but everyone and their third cousin is absolutely agreed on the critical necessity of ridding the country of the orange Chernobyl in the White House. "Unity" doesn't require a specific candidate. Trump provides all the unity Democrats need.
2
The most delusional piece I've seen yet on the Democratic field. Big picture, she will not have the support of many who find her views too extreme, and many others who are troubled by her past dishonesty. Small picture, there is no way she will have the support of a majority of that narrow swath of voters in 4 or 5 states who will actually determine the winner of the election.
On both counts, Warren is actually the Democrats' lose-lose candidate.
1
I do not trust Sanders who IS a DC Beltway insider for DECADES, and who is disingenuously taking advantage of the DNC resources ONLY at election time. He still has not explained how WE ARE GOING TO PAY for his programs. He does NOT have foreign policy experience. He cannot muster non-white support even now.
I had experienced first-hand the belligerence from Sander's supporters in 2016. They ere extremely rigid, rude and beyond talking with, quite akin to #KremlinDon base minus the racist extremism and lack of basic education. It was their way or none. So many stayed home rather than voting for HRC, our nominee. These people were horrendously short-sighted and here we are now. I bet they will show the same grudge if Bernie is not chosen.
Unlike them, as a Democrat I will support OUR eventual nominee. We cannot afford the minute-by-minute deconstruction of our democracy. Neither can the world.
Too bad the media and DNC have ignored and smeared the candidate who has demonstrated appeal across party lines. I have been following Tulsi Gabbard's campaign with interest and a few month's ago got to one of her town halls where I saw her engage with us, with insight and respect, on the issues facing our country and the world. She's a veteran who has deployed to the Middle East and has experience on the municipal, state and federal levels of government. She is running a true grass roots campaign with contributions from small donors only. Her integrity stands out. Hope people will take another look and consider voting for her. She very well may be the one who has the best chance against Trump.
"Elizabeth Warren Is the Democrats’ Unity Candidate."
Yes. Sanders who might otherwise be a very fine person is an election-time brute. Elitist: that's the same brutal lie he used against Clinton. That's how he irreparably damaged Clinton's candidacy. Sanders should take his hands off Warren now, and call off his thugs. The things that would make Warren a good president are the very same things that would make her our unity candidate. The very things that the Sanders folks are pillorying Warren for are the reasons we should all like her. Yep, she was once a Republican. Yep, she has worked on corporate bankruptcy cases. Yep, she has four Republican veteran brothers. She gets stuff done, e.g., the consumer financial board which helped millions. She has worked on behalf of poor, working class and middle class folk for her entire life.
2
"I’ve hesitated to write too much about the Democratic primary because I have a conflict of interest — my husband is consulting for Warren’s campaign."
You state you have a legitimate conflict of interest and then go on to speak to Warren's ability to best unite the Democrats. How can one take anything you have written seriously about Warren after you state: "I’ve hesitated to write too much about the Democratic primary because I have a conflict of interest — my husband is consulting for Warren’s campaign."
I disagree with your assessment about Warren. I am concerned about your own stated conflict of interest and the violation of it.
3
Give me a break! In no way is she the unity candidate. She reminds me of someone fumbling their way to do good. She gives me an unsecure feeling.
3
Bernie Sanders has spent his whole life as a Prophet in the Wilderness, a status he and (((I))) know something about. Such Prophets are necessary, but also necessarily unpopular, because they spend all their time criticizing everyone. It is therefore necessary to have another figure waiting in the wings, a Joshua, capable of leading the people across the finish line. This person will be unburdened by the animosity that Prophet has built up, and capable of pressing their dream to fruition, in a way the Prophet himself cannot. I dearly hope that Sanders sees this, before it is too late, and not merely steps aside, but steps firmly into Warren's camp, ready to bring the faithful in line beside the masses.
1
Elizabeth Warren has plenty of negatives:
- many people still don't trust her from her claim of having American Indian heritage
- her recent position to go for Medicare for All in year 3 of her presidency smacks of both opportunism and lack of guts. It also highlights how her numbers just don't add up. At least Bernie is honest that MFA will cost a fortune.
- plenty of people simply don't believe that Bernie would say that a woman can't win.
- her polling numbers with Black Democrats is not impressive
- her claims of not taking corporate money, except when she transferred $20 Million from her Senate campaign which *did* include corporate money, is not endearing to progressives
For better or worse, Biden is still the only Democrat who can beat Trump.
1
Warren has lost the moderate wing of the party by not accepting those candidates who do not pass her progressive purity tests. She has spent too much time attacking those who have been successful and playing by the books. Certainly some of her ideas are good. She will lose the midwest Trump leaning states and give Trump the election.
1
Thank you Ms. Goldberg for your well articulated thoughts, and for also being candid about your direct connection to the Warren campaign. That being said, I think it's pretty important that pundits begin to better define the term "unity" in this postmodern-populist era. As an important side note, I have an advanced degree in women and gender studies, and have been thrilled by Warren's rise in the party. In contrast, I held my nose to vote for Hilary Clinton because her brand of "feminism" historically excluded women of color here and abroad. Today, I am outraged about the Politico and CNN smear campaign against Sanders. The man fought for women's and queer rights while Hilary Clinton was rallying for Berry Goldwater, and Elizabeth Warren was a Republican. I understand that people can evolve and change. However, the media has to as well. Yes Sander's aids may have suggested that Warren's base is far whiter, wealthier, and more traditional than his base. That is factually accurate and the data bears that reality. It says a lot when Warren coffee mugs are being sold in the Hamptons last summer, while the disdain for Sander's working class antics are still visceral among the New England elite. Bernie Sanders is being fueled by Gen X, millennial, and Gen Z women of color, school teachers, the women led Sunrise Movement, and the largest nurses union in the nation. The false sexist smears need to stop.
A comment appears near the top of the Readers Picks from a woman named Elaine. She writes that she will vote for any of the democrats but will pull the lever for Warren with joy.
That is what sets Elizabeth Warren apart from all of the rest; she campaigns with such joy. She is "tickled pink" to be with all of the people; proposing a new way forward; taking selfies; answering questions. When she says she has a plan for that she doesn't seem to be patting herself on the back as much as letting US all in on a secret.
t rump won in 2016 by the very slimmest of margins and was elected by people who really didn't know who he was. He did not have a track record outside of NYC, apart from the fictional track record on the Apprentice.
He now has a track record that includes letting children die in cages, letting Puerto Rico fend for itself, insulting our allies, turning his back on state sponsored murder by Putin and MBS, and failure to revive the coal and manufacturing jobs.
That might not move his very base base, but moderates who took a chance in '16 seem plenty turned off by his evil ways.
My optimism took a new turn when I read that Bloomberg will spend his money to defeat t rump even if he is not the nominee. Even if that nominee is Sanders or Warren.
Let's take back our Country.
1
I have a ton of respect for Elizabeth Warren, but her nomination would be certain doom for the Democrats. The most true thing I've heard about her came from (of all people) Anthony Scaramucci during an appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher. Scaramucci said if Warren gets the nomination, "Trump wins 40 out of 50 states." In response, there was much derisive laughter and dismissiveness (troublingly similar to what anyone got who suggested Hillary wasn't a slam dunk) -- but I haven't forgotten those words for the simple reason that when push comes to shove moderate Democrats will protect their money above all else. For all they say publicly, in the privacy of the voting booth they will swallow their queasiness and pull the lever for Trump. Biden is not an ideal candidate by any stretch, but he is our only hope to beat Trump, and the others need to get behind him and quick. I only wish Barack Obama would get all the Democratic candidates in a room and tell Amy and Pete, their time will come, but it's not now, and tell Bernie and Liz that there's too much at stake and they have to take one for the team.
Time to slightly change messaging. I don't care who contributes to a candidate. I care about the character, courage, underlying values and positions. This might surprise you but many weathly care about others, understand the efficiencies needed and in backing Liz want the intelligent balanced approach she would deliver. Many wealthy earned their success contributing to the betterment of society. Liz needs to better communicate that she understands the balance of capitalism and socialism whereas Bernie is a pure socialist and is angry with anyone who opposes him. Liz is a healthy 70 years old which in male life span calculous makes her 55 compared to Bernie and Biden (think dog years). She also looks forward not back. I'd love to have a beer with Joe but he isn't my choice. Liz needs to adopt Pete's position on UH and let a full coverage one payer system compete against a private system. The one payer system will win every time. Insurance frictional cost is unnecessary. Insurance is to protect against risk. The large numbers involved in HC creates the ability to accurately predict costs therefore there is no risk in funding the insured group. That is why virtually every enterprise in the U.S. with over 500 employees "self-insures" completely or at a high level as the frictional cost of insurers profit, administration and loss of decision control are unnecessary and poor business practice.
This is right on. She's the unity candidate without a doubt.
I have had mixed feelings about this field of candidates. It is difficult to see which one would be able to pull off the Herculean task of bringing democratic voters together simply because tRump is such a nasty piece of work. He’ll be( already is) in the gutter before the nominee is selected. Biden worries me because of his frequent slip ups and his tongue-tied responses (3rd try for him). He, also, seems to want to turn the clock back a generation or three. Warren and Sanders are vying for the same demographic with nearly identical platforms, but, of the two, Warren seems a little more pragmatic. Her explanation of how to pay for universal healthcare was dodgy, but her admission that it couldn’t be enacted in toto and immediately was refreshing. Klobuchar would be a little on the status quo side, but she is honest and it’s kind of amazing that she has had such staying power. What to think of Buttigieg escapes me and I don’t believe he can garner broad appeal. The rest of the pack are non-starters. IMHO, billionaires should use their money to pay their employees living wages and take less compensation for themselves and shareholders, instead of trying to run the whole show. It speaks volumes about their egos. Whatever happens, the main goal ought to be restoring the presidency to the people and ridding our government of his enablers(Mitch, Lindsey and the rest). Hey, Republicans, you don’t have to fear these men, vote them out of leadership positions!
While they fight it out, take a closer look at Klobuchar. Women will vote for her, much of the the left will vote for "First woman President, those covered by Health Insurance will vote for her, centrists will vote for her, middle America will vote for her and she ain't on Medicare . She took on Kavanaugh and as a prosecutor she knows how to attack Trump. Wake up democrats, she's the real deal!
@mike scott
She also knows how to attack her aides and anyone standing near her if she doesn't get dressing on her salad.
I find Warren condescending, and many of her proposals horrify me -- they are less practical and workable than she makes then sound ("they're wrong" is not a strong debate winner to me). I do not find her at all unifying. Would I vote for her as the nominee? In a hot second -- but I think she would be incapable of enacting most of her agenda.
2
Of course, Warren is a fantastic candidate for the presidency and could bring together the party. She is smart enough to know what to do in all situations. Would she make mistakes? Of course, but certainly, nothing worse than a series of Republican presidents have done. The problem that continues to exist is that the GOP is willing to lie, cheat and steal in order to gain power and the GOP has the Electoral College and voter suppression on its side. Thus, will the public believe the lies and if it doesn't, could Warren garner enough votes to overcome the horrible disadvantage of the Electoral College and voter suppression?
1
"Many believe he weakened Hillary Clinton by dragging out the primary — at one point even threatening a contested convention — and then only halfheartedly rallying his fans behind her when it was over."
Normally I like Ms Goldberg's columns but this is straight out of the east coast elitist echo chamber.
Sanders won the national popular vote in the primaries including here in Colorado, not Hillary. The Democratic super delegates and machinations of the Democratic party got Hillary the nomination and undermined the people. I wouldn't blame Sanders if he was angry about that, many of us were angry about that.
Many of us who supported Bernie in 2016 believe he could have won over Trump. I had to hold my nose to vote for Hillary because of her baggage and entitlement. She ran a bad campaign. It was not Bernie's fault she didn't win.
I don't know what "Resistance" Warren is leading. She does not galvanize young people nationwide the way Bernie does.
Now I hear whining from Warren and claims that Bernie told her a woman can't win. Sorry, but that just doesn't resonate. I think that Trump would eat her for lunch.
3
@Bear Lass I agree. He'd eat her for lunch and have Bailey for dessert -- on the first day of the campaign.
I think you need to set aside your own allegiances and get outside the NYC/DC bubble, Michelle.
If you travel to the states that will decide the election - the upper Midwest and the coastal states of VA, NC, and Florida - and look at the polls there, it seems pretty clear that Biden is far more likely than either Warren or Sanders to win the general election.
1
Shame on NY Times for publishing this blatant copy/paste Warren campaign propaganda
6
Bernie Sanders helped Trump. Willingly or unwillingly. It doesn't matter. I hope he doesn't do it again.
5
Agreed. Elizabeth Warren perhaps started out too determined to push Medicare for All (which I support in principle but am concerned about doctor availability, a problem in some places in Canada), but she has recently shown flexibility. She is smart, compassionate, articulate, understands the problems facing a wide swath of Americans, understands the science of global warming, and has the intellectual curiosity to ask the right questions. No candidate is perfect, of course, but Warren strikes me as a fighter who knows when to compromise.
4
The United States has become a third world country and a second-rate democracy because the 0.01%'ers totally own our politicians. The reply from Republican legislators when we ask for infrastructure funding or any other items that benefit our collective society is that we can't afford it, or it will blow up the budget deficit, or it's socialism.
Conversely, Republicans have run Iraq and Afghanistan wars on our credit card and given the military a budget that eats-up $0.67 of every dollar we pay in taxes.
Trump's new motto "Making Our Country Second-Rate" and it's working.
2
Thank you, Michelle. I have thought this way from the beginning of the campaign. My hope and expectation is that when the time comes, Sanders and Biden will campaign vigorously on Warren's behalf.
2
She was the first and so easily played the 'female' card when she leaked that Bernie said any woman was totally unelectable.
You can learn a great deal about a candidate when she clearly demonstrates her core belief in fairness is fungible.
3
I think we should listen to Lawrence O'Donnell who voiced something that I had long thought about. Presidents are not a dictator and not capable by fiat of making any substantive change to programs like health insurance. That is Congress's job. They can either sign or veto programs. When asked whether she would sign an incremental program to expand existing Obamacare Warren said yes, she would sign anything that helps even if it is far, far, short of her proposals. Democrats shouldn't get totally hung up on campaign wish lists which everyone knows have little chance of being implemented in the near term, even by a successful candidate.
4
@Milliband I heard that on O'Donnell's show but that hasn't actually been her campaign message. Other candidates have expressed the same healthcare goals, but recognizing that they have to be pragmatic. Warren has castigated them for their lack of courage. Just another example of her inconsistency. O'Donnell is such a shameless Warren supporter, it's hard to take him seriously.
Warren had the good sense to adopt the Inslee climate plan which has been endorsed by the majority of climate experts. Sanders invented his own climate plan and the experts think it won't get the job done. Enough said.
2
I supported Bernie Sanders in 2016 and got all kinds of pushback from the Hillary camp for it, down to a hilariously curmudgeonly Rep. Barney Frank who made the trip from Massachusetts to chew us out on a big screen at our party's convention. This year I'm supporting Elizabeth Warren because she's got the policies of Sanders without the unhelpful talk of revolution and conspiracies and yes, the misogyny of some of Bernie's supporters. That, and I love her story, her intelligence, and her energy.
I wouldn't mind nationalizing some industries (cough, health care) or requiring employee representation on corporate boards (the way Warren has proposed) but I think it's unnecessarily alienating when you're pushing basic New Deal liberalism to call it socialism or a revolution.
7
You’re right Michelle. Not necessarily that Warren would be a formidable candidate, but that staying out of the primary process was a solid instinct. There’s lots of confirmation bias here as you’ve certainly found all kinds of reasons for why the person you like the best would be the best, most unifying candidate. I’m not at all sure.
I say it about Trump and I’ll say it about everyone else: while it’s certainly better to have large, enthusiastic crowds come out for you, it doesn’t necessarily mean much except that this particular universe of people really like you. It doesn’t tell you all that much about anything else. Warren gets kudos for going to West Virginia early on. I had hoped that Obama would have nominated her to SCOTUS. But I don’t see her as a president, unlike someone like Klobuchar. Fair or not (it’s not), the whole Harvard law professor thing is going to be hard to sell to the nation in a general. Given how the general public feels about liberal professors (I am one), it would only be worse if she were jumping from journalism into national politics. My cousins in Wilkes-Barre would not only not vote for her, they wouldn’t even give her a chance.
1
All trump has to do is talk about the $10,000 in tax increases for every man, woman, and child under Medicare for All and he wins the election. Warren badly underestimated how toxic the policy would be and how many Americans are afraid not only of paying a lot more but also losing the employer health insurance they like.
2
While I agree with the idea that Warren would be a unifying candidate, leading with the notion that Sanders bears sole responsibility for factionalism within the democratic party (and placing the origins of said factionalism in 2016) only widens intra-party divide.
Sanders' supporters and a lot of other Americans feel like the process itself is and has been failing to represent them- to ignore this legitimate grievance in the NYT is to exacerbate the problem this article otherwise attempts to solve.
4
The most important electoral battle of 2020 is for majority control of the Senate -- without which no Democrat president would be able to see any their nominee(s?) for the Supreme Court seated nor have brought for signature any legislation to increase the availability of affordable healthcare, offset global warming, etc.; and with which Trump could be more thoroughly investigated (if not indicted) for his criminal actions, and his policy agenda/judicial nominees could be effectively stifled.
As a Senator from a state with a Republican governor, Elizabeth Warren's election to higher office would flip her blue Senate seat red. Supporting her candidacy makes the already daunting goal of a Democrat controlled Senate virtually impossible.
3
Democrats always find a way to lose. Warren will not beat Trump. A vote for her is a vote for Trump.
4
Warren is for diversity, fairness, green plan. She's a unifier, Brilliant & committed. Has solutions to restore democracy, rule of law and stable economy. She’s POTUS we need at this crucial time in our history. And Yes, She is a WOMAN! The right Woman to lead US.
8
Some strong argument have been voiced by the columnist. Warren does indeed have a lot to recommend her.
My biggest fear is that her campaign has had an uneven, somewhat frenetic and disjointed quality. But it does appear the senator realizes it's crunch time, and the moment has come to take on Sanders.
In a few weeks we'll know whether it was a Hail Mary pass, or whether in retrospect it was the strategy shift that started her surge.
I could not disagree with you more. I do not see her “uniting” anyone. She is as divisive in her own way as Trump is in his. We will see how well she does in her home state.
4
There are lots of arguments about who would be the best Democrat but I think that, in the end, it doesn't matter who runs for President...they just have to replace Trump.
1
Or at least she was until she decided to go low over the last few days. It was a toss-up (at least in my mind) who to support, and it felt GOOD to have two substantive candidates, but then Senator Sanders began to pull away, so now we’re all about to be deluged by manufactured controversies.
Quite predictably, the Warren campaign - in concert with a media (including and maybe especially the Times) itching for controversy - tried to turn a nonstory into a scandal, and attack Sanders with a narrative recycled from Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
After failing to generate too much heat with attacks on Mayor Pete’s “wine cave” fundraiser, Warren’s surrogates were on the lookout for the next big thing to attack, and latched onto a memo that: A) apparently doesn’t emanate from the top of the Sanders campaign; and B) is empirically true - eg: the Warren campaign doesn’t have as much appeal to prospective new Democratic voters.
Pile this manufactured “outrage” on top of a couple of other discomforting facts undergirding Senator Warren’s campaign (the new embrace of populism and her Sanders-esque disdain for billionaire funding, check her receipts for her Senate runs) and I’m starting to wonder if it isn’t business as usual with the DNC and Warren working to derail Sanders, again.
7
"Attacking another candidates’ supporters rather than her record is kind of obnoxious, but as far as political combat goes, it was pretty mild."
It is factually true that, overall, the Sanders and Warren demographics are different: that Sanders has attracted more lower income and less educated voters who, as a demographic, vote less; and that Warren gets more higher income professionals who vote more.
Saying this is not an attack, but must be squarely faced, because it bears on the critical question of Sanders' vs. Warren's electability:
Simply, a higher % of higher income Warren supporters will vote for any Democratic candidate; whereas a lower % of lower income Sander supporters will vote for other Democrats - because only Sanders' economic populism (combined w/his 'beer track,' authentic working class character) have politically engaged many of them.
A lot of potentially Democratic-voting US citizens stay home - a Sanders candidacy promises to get more of them to the voting booth.
12
Trump should by the Democrats' unity candidate. Anyone who can "unite" enough voters in enough states, including moderate voters in swing states, should be the Democrats' dream candidate. Elizabeth Warren is not that candidate. I will vote for whomever the Democrats nominate, and anyone who truly cares about the future of this country will do the same. But we need those voters who cannot stomach either Trump or Bernie/Warren and, given that choice, will simply not show up. Those are the people we need to "unite." Anyone claiming to be a Democrat who refuses to unite behind whatever candidate is able to win the nomination - whether that be Bernie Sanders or Michael Bloomberg - is advocating suicide.
2
Well, this has certainly been a weekend of PR stunts. Must be close to the first primaries/caucuses.
The Politico and CNN articles, followed by this NYT OpEd, smack of “hired gun”. Warren staffers are responsible for at least two of the above, and they should be made to realize that they just put a nail in the coffin of a progressive majority at the convention.
Should have gone the Robert Reich way, Liz. This is not unity. This is a takedown of Bernie.
5
1) Warren starts the day's toxic news cycle by falsely charging Sanders with ordering campaign staff to "trash me." This over a phone bank script stating an easily verified fact about the demographic makeup of her support. (Data from Pew Research: https://tinyurl.com/PewResearchOnDemographics). The script contains not one derogatory word about Warren herself.
2) Warren uses this non-existent attack to dig up the most divisive baggage from 2016: recriminations from some Clinton voters claiming Sanders primary challenge, not the weakness of Hillary's campaign, the media's fixation on her emails or Russia's intervention put Trump in office.
3) Having issued this defamatory charge to cleave progressive America in two, Warren declares herself the unifier of the Democratic Party. This Orwellian two-step is reported with exactly zero objective scrutiny by multiple news media outlets.
4) On the same day, in the same news cycle, Warren accuses Sanders of saying, in a private 1 on 1 meeting in 2018, that he doesn't think a woman can win. As no witness was present, there is only Sanders to refute it. When he does, Warren partisans like Laurence Tribe claim it is "incredible" that Sanders would challenge Warren's account.
5) What's incredible is the idea Warren was acting spontaneously, with no political motive, in this barrage of defamatory attacks. More "incredible" still that anyone would find Warren tearing open old wounds from 2016 TWICE in the same news cycle commendable.
9
This is the clearest analysis of the past few days’ press events that I’ve read so far.
1
You are so on the point. Thanks.
She may be a unity candidate for the Democrats, but she won't win, so pick another candidate who can.
4
@Jeff. And therein lies the problem. Bloomberg is the only one with a shot and he won’t win the nomination. Warren and the others have no chance against Trump.
Wow....I'm glad you are a reporter, beacuse you are no political prognosticator (though I always read your column!).
Everthing....EVERTHING we have seen in the past month tells us that Elizabeth Warren is the worst option as a candidate. Her numbers have been soft since she released her overly detailed and unworkable plan for Medicare for All, which is increasingly a non-starter for the majority of Democratic voters. [Yes, it is theoretically the best, if not only, way to rachet costs down quickly, but it will also cause the most disruption and no, I do not want to give up my current insurance.
A female Harvard academic whose political base is in Massachusets? Wow, what could possibly go wrong? She cannot drawl her way out of being successfully labeled an elitist. Because she is. I think it is possible she would get much less support from women than Hillary, and HRC only got 54 percent despite focusing her campaign on being women's and family issues (and she got only one percent more than Obama).
Warren is relentlessly focused on policy when Democratic and voters in general are saying "We do not care about policy." She does not know how to touch people because that is not her training or inclination, and she is not good at faking it
On the other hand, she could prove she is a contender by bagging the policy noise and slagging Trump using emasculating language that will drive him insane. I am not joking. That is what we need to hear -- toughness applied. ¡Bring it!
3
Don't blame Bernie for Hillary's loss! The things that the Russian hack exposed about her were far more damaging than anything Bernie said. Even though the Russian hack was illegal and underhanded, the most damaging things in it were all true. Hillary did not get it. All she had to do to win the Presidency was select Sanders as her running mate, or another Progressive. The moment she selected Kaine as her I said, "She is going to lose." And so did Michael Moore. Hillary's campaign completely missed the point. It was not about deplorables, it WAS about the economy. And the old Clinton/Obama status quo was a loser. And beware, because it still likely is.
6
If you really think Warren could win, or even is a wise choice, you're dreaming. Warren is ineffective, pedantic, a turn off. She comes off as canned. She picks petty, divisive fights, like this latest silliness with Sanders (I do not support Sanders). She is naïve about how to pull off her many plans. She tells us what we need rather than listening to what we want. Sadly, there are now several instances where her truthfulness is questionable. trump and his cult would make mincemeat of her short shrift. Get serious, Democrats, or you're guaranteeing more trump. Warren is needed in the Senate; but if she heads the ticket, it'd be a McGovern-style wipe out.
5
@Winsome
Your post is offensive, cheap and absurd. If anybody in the bunch has ever been able to pull off something major in DC, it is EW, it’s an agency called the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. And what do you mean by “she comes off as...” This is such a personal sexist insult. If in life you base your own opinion on people based on the color of their skin, their gender, of whatever, it just means you are bigoted.
Please going forward stop posting such offensive and gratuitous comments. Go on Fox News instead.
Unity? Warren? Ridiculous.
Her latest sleazy gambit of attacking Sanders with nonsense will disqualify her for many, many thousands of Sanders's voters.
She has a long sorry history of creating false narratives that feature her as the underdog, the victim.
On the basis of a vague "family story" she allowed herself to be featured as a minority hire as an indigenous person.
She claimed she was fired for being pregnant while the record of school board meetings clear show that she resigned after realizing that being a teacher was not the path that called her and, therefore, she would study other discipline than were required to get a permanent credential. There is video of her telling the story THAT way in the intervening years between her resignation and her invention of her "firing".
She claimed that her father worked as a janitor. Her brother says that, "Our father never was a janitor."
Now she claims that Sanders told her she could not win because she is a woman. Even the New York Times wrote just after that meeting that neither asked for the support of the other nor tried to discourage the other from running.
Now, after hurling this terrible smear, she says she is no longer interested in discussing.
She lacks integrity. She is an opportunist. And she distorts the truth to undermine someone who has only every treated her with the utmost of respect.
The narrative in Goldberg's piece is artfully distorted, in the same way. Sander did not trash her. She did him.
8
How much did the Warren campaign pay you for this piece? She'll unify the dems -- possible, because the dems have moved so far left. But as for being the best candidate, that's ridiculous. Trump will batter her for her claiming to be Cherokee -- which any thinking person can see was a career move. You don't change your race in your 30's unless you're nutty, and her change of race certainly gassed up her career.
Face it, she's unappealing, she's a careerist, and you can call Trump a liar all you want, but Warren's race change was epic.
7
"A Warren candidacy would not force centrist Democrats to make their peace with socialism nor ask young socialists to jettison their dreams of egalitarian economic transformation."
This statement holds no more water than if most of the other candidates were to be nominated. It will be the number one job of the candidate who is the nominee to unite the party; and I see no more ability in Warren to do that than Biden, Buttigieg or Klobachar.
1
There is a conflict between who would be the best president and who has the best chance of beating Trump.There is another conflict between the qualities needed to win the nomination and the qualities needed to be a good president. Unless we resolve these problems the country is at risk.
Problem is nobody knows nor is really good at predicting electability. It’s a fool’s errand. Much better for everybody to vote that heart (like the republicans did by the way in 2016) and rally behind a nominee. It’s not more complicated.
1
Sanders is not a registered Democrat. He is an independent seeking the Democratic nomination for president. A sign of commitment is for him to give up his independent status and become a Democrat And yes, he did hurt Hillary Clinton and he could do it again to Elizabeth Warren. If Sanders does become the candidate I will vote for him and every Democrat should vote for him. This country needs to rid itself of Trump and his gang (administration). Sanders can talk, so let us see him use his rough and tumble style against Trump. Please vote for whoever becomes the Democrats' candidate. We need a united party.
4
Anyone who has ever worked in a campaign to make sure that their Candidate is the chosen one, will recognize that there are always one or two people who go "rogue' using their own language or script to denigrate the other candidate. It was not the whole Sander's campaign who was trying to minimize Warren's gender. It was someone who thought they knew better.
I have no reason to not believe Sander's explanation and hopefully his Campaign Manager so states today before the debate this evening.
I do not think that Warren thought that Sanders was behind this gaffe. She herself said that he was her friend and was disappointed that the campaign, not Sanders, would be doing this.
They both have acted admirably toward one another in the debates. I hope this continues tonight. Because if Sanders attacks Elizabeth he will do a great dis-service to both himself and Women in this country. And the same would be true of Warren if she went after Sanders.
2
Hillary lost the election all on her own. Just the fact that she and your column are blaming others is explanation enough. Waah! Waah! Waah!
She ran out of steam and refused to imagine Trump beating her; and so failed in the last 2 weeks to barnstorm through the 3 states that cost her the Electoral College and thus that election!
Bernie is still an exciting populist who has inspired millions of non-voters like young people and the disaffected to donate, campaign, register, and show-up and vote.
Elizabeth is a great policy wonk and wonderful Senator and economic crusader and is most needed in Congress similar to Ted Kennedy.
Her just expressed “identity lies” and your column’s crankiness about Bernie is just Hillary 2.0 excuses. Stop trying to create some chimeric candidate via VP packaging who can’t stand on her own. I don’t want a VP that I wouldn’t want now or eventually to be President.
Biden will not excite any but the never-Trumpers and the mainstream Democrats.
Yes, Elizabeth could create true party unity today by suspending her campaign and throwing her support for Bernie right now.
Divide the Progressives and she guarantees a Biden/Klobuchar ticket. The numbers are there right now for Bernie Progressives joined by Warren Progressives. If Warren really had a win or die fire in the belly must win the Presidency at all costs spirit, she would’ve challenged Hillary back in 2016. Now she’s more of a spoiler just learning the political ropes. Who is steadfast from day 1
5
Maybe. I like Buttigieg, but do not think that this is his time. The more I see/hear Sanders the more I feel I'd have to hold my nose to vote for him in November (and do we really need another angry old white guy in the White House?). That said, I could imagine getting at least comfortable & at peace voting for Warren, though I disagree with her on some things. We'll see.
1
Stick with Buttigieg!
African-American voters? They won't vote for Trump but they may very well stay home.
3
This is the same candidate who insinuated Biden should be running in a different Party, right?
This is a fight between the candidates and the voters. If every person in America who could vote, did vote, no Republican (at least in their current personification), would win.The fight here is between the Democratic nominee and their voters. Who can get the majority of Democratic leaning voters to go to the polls and vote? There were several African American or Hispanic candidates. Now there are none. Why? Because they couldn't garner enough support even among their own race. Why is that? The fact that African Americans overwhelmingly support an old white fuddy duddy like Biden tells you all you need to know. Corey and Kamala must be just shaking their heads, wondering how this all happened. Even when a Black guy was in the White House, Black Americans still were on the back burner at the end of 8 Obama years. They have been on the outs their entire lives. They are used to it. So the only way to get something, anything for their vote is to join'em rather than beat 'em. They are smart enough to figure that one out. All the Republicans have to do is offset the slight increase in enthusiasm by minorities with suppression of an equal number of votes. So, Mike Bloomberg, if what you really want is the Democrat to win, put that billion dollars toward getting people out to vote. They don't need to hear Trump is terrible for them.They aren't stupid. They just need help registering and rides to the polls.
Pretty hypocritical to laud one candidate as a unifier while simultaneously claiming the other one is “detested”...a claim that’s is also true about Warren. As well, it is convenient to claim that Sanders weakened Clinton and forget to mention that the DNC did everything in its power to undermine Sanders, who more than a few Conservatives told me they would have voted for over Trump. Yes, Michelle, you are biased, and you’re also a cheap journalist to choose to ignore so many important facts on your way to a largely loose claim of one candidate being more of a unifier when you know that is not true.
5
Yes, yes, yes!!!
Her advocacy of Medicare for All (which she's proposed phasing-in with succeeding phases contingent on public acceptance of initial ones) is just common sense. M4A is the most efficient, most economical way to provide health care to all Americans. Yes, it's huge, but it would save tons of money and significantly increase the positive effects achieved by the ACA. Stop already with the scare tactics, "too far left," "take your insurance away" etc., etc.
Make it a choice between Warren, an exceptionally capable, decent person with a great track record, and Trump, a willfully ignorant, incompetent con man who ruins everything he touches, and see what happens.
Women voters will decide the 2020 election, as I think they did the one in 2018. Trump is toast.
1
A vote for Warren is a sure landslide for Trump. No doubt about it.
5
An excellent plea for a Biden/Warren ticket.
2
Both the headline "Unity Candidate" and the sub-head "best hope" are scary because they are so misguided.
Ms. Goldberg cannot remember McGovern. That's - a trouncing... by TRUMP - where EW would/will take us.
It's NUTS that being "likable" matters as much as it does these days. And Ms. Warren "gets that," hence an even nuttier number of selfies to date.
But matter it does, ... and she is another "Hillary," and the first one will be viewed by history as a kind of US Chernobyl.
This is not woman-bashing, because I don't think Ms. Klobachar would have (more like would have had, I'm afraid) such a heavy lift.
It's easy to miss when the NYT is central to one's intellectual and daily life, ... but our populace has never been more ignorant ... of their own best interest and how our society - political/economic are joined at the hip - works.
Sadly, a very educated and bright person will inevitably - Hillary may have been arrogant, but she wasn't stupid - make those people feel pitied.... And then many of them will find their way to the polls & click on Trump.
I think we can now give up on "the great unifier" - he or she (in 2020) reminds me of the "great white hopes" of yore. Wishing won't summon one into existence.
We're reduced to finding a candidate who won't lead to too many millions of Dems sitting it out ... while prying loose enough 2016 Trump voters to squeak through.
It will/would truly be "threading a needle." PB is the party's Tennessee Titans-like possibility.
2
@EdTow
Suggest you open up a bio of Nixon and read about the McGovern loss and refresh your memory. You clearly completely misunderstand what happened back in 1972.
1972 was the year when Nixon “Silent Majority” of winning over the Deep South to the red side post Civil Rights paid off. White anxiety and strong undercurrents on Vietnam. That year, almost any candidate on the dem side would have lost. McGovern was for exiting the war (they all were) You know what would have happened if the dem had selected instead a warmonger? He’d have won zero state.
And... scene.
If she’s the “unity candidate”, the dems are beyond hopeless.
Four more years it is.
8
The Democrats’ unity candidate should be ..... Donald Trump.
Seriously.
If Democrats understood what a threat Trump is to everything they value in the USA, they would unite behind any candidate who opposed him.
Any candidate.
Instead, we’ll have the circular firing squad, to be followed by a pageant of sore losers at the DNC, and a rout on Election Day when write-in candidates siphon votes from the actual nominee.
To be followed by the sad spectacle enacted by the Electoral College, where “faithless electors” on the Democratic side will stand on their precious principles and cast away their votes, while Republican electors, like the voters before them, will fall in lockstep behind their lord and master.
Prove me wrong. I would be delighted.
5
Could Senator Warren first tell the truth about sending her son to an exclusive private school, as she advocates abolition of school choice initiatives? Honesty would be a good start to unifying the Democrats.
4
Such hand wringing, and navel gazing. HRC lost in 2016 by 70K votes, despite being massively outspent, if you add in money from the Russkies, Trump and the Kochs. To boot, Trump had Russian intelligence doing his dirty work for him. Yet, the Dems handily won in 2018 on bread and butter issues, not endless government programs with tax increases of 20% for the middle class and 40% for the .001%. Almost every Dem beats Trump in the current polls. Elizabeth is not my first choice, but I'll vote for anyone of them solely on the basis they are not DJT. We are not going to find anyone who is perfect, but we may find someone who is perfectly willing and able to win, if we all pull together. Teamwork is where it's at.
2
I would love to live in the America that Elizabeth Warren’s policies would produce. Trying to figure out who is most electable probably is a fool’s errand. But...
The 2020 electoral college will be decided in the likes of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin. How would she play there? She’s a little bit shrill; she’s *liberal* (“Eww!”); she’s female. Trump and Putin’s trolls may be able to adequately smear her in those swing states. What have we come to?!
Don’t get me wrong, if the Democrats nominate Daffy Duck, I will vote for Daffy Duck, who doesn’t even exist but would be preferable to this barbarian. And Joe Biden would be a great disappointment, but consider: his Medicare for All Who Want It is probably all Warren could get past the moderate Democrats; he will get what’s possible in education; he’ll rebuild our alliances. Plus, Donald Trump hates and fears Joe Biden. That’s gotta be a plus!
Maybe I’ll vote for the delegate leader before Super Tuesday.
Another day, another column, another Trump-driven misanalysis. Amy Klobuchar is the actual unity candidate -- a woman, a Mid-westerner, a left of center liberal, well-spoken and pleasant. In other words, a formidable opponent against Trump. But for some reason, Michelle Goldberg and all her media friends got it in their heads that Amy was unacceptable and Elizabeth, despite all her shortcomings, was the answer. Michelle and company will regret their approach. On the other hand, it will make for many post-mortem columns when Trump is re-elected.
6
Not this year. Not against this knucklehead in office. Those educated white mom's in Trump country are not going for this woman. We need to win electoral votes, not duplicate Hillary's feel-good victory.
6
So citing the (lack of) breadth Warren has in support is obnoxious even though it's central to your argument about why she is the strongest candidate?
3
Bringing together warring Democratic factions is utterly pointless if you can't beat Trump in a general election and Warren cannot beat Trump in a general election!
'United Democrats lose to Trump' - how on earth is that a useful headline?!?
3
A vote for Trump over any Dem candidate is a fool's errand. The rest is academic.
I don't think "party unity" is a significant issue. Except for the diehard "Bernie bros", I believe the vast majority of commited Democrats share my opinion - in the general election, I'd vote for the rotten carcass of a dead rat before I'd vote for con-man Don. The issue is "electability" - which Democrat will be most attractive to independent voters and those Republicans disgusted by Trump.
I will never vote for E. Warren. She backed HC, she's late to the all of Sander's ideas! And NOW this sloppy left hook. The DNC blew the last election NOT Sanders.
6
Sanders's behavior in the 2016 election was one of the factors in trump being elected. So were the loser 3 party candidates. And the fool voters who couldn't see reality. Sanders has some of the blame, but not all of it.
3
If your husband is consulting for the Warren campaign you should not have written this op-ed. And I detest Sanders, but you should not have written this if your husband is consulting for Warren.
6
@EO
It's an opinion piece. It doesn't matter. Duh.
It doesn't matter who the democratic candidate is: ANYONE is better than Trump. Those who would vote for Trump might as well be voting for Vladimir Putin; Trump is just Putin's proxy!
3
She may unite the party, but do you think this Harvard/Massachusetts left-wing elitist is going to appeal to Joe and Jane Lunch Bucket in the Midwest. She won't, no matter how many times she talks about her Oklahoma roots and her "janitor" father.
1
Bernie 2020
Vote for a True Progressive!
6
THANK YOU Michelle- now please take one step further and become the first major columnist to actually begin VETTING Bernie Sanders. What is a more basic character issue than how you supported and prioritized your own child? After fathering a son, Sanders with a prestigious UChicago college degree spent 20 years avoiding holding fulltime jobs. He mocked 9 to 5 workers in his Socialist essays. A VT newspaper article from 1974 shows the mother of his son testifying at a housing hearing about being on WELFARE to support Sanders' five year old son. Why is this never even MENTIONED in the media? What if anything did Saint Bernie contribute financially to the support of his own child? The other candidates fear Sander's vicious sexist army of online trolls. Most voters have no idea Sanders ran for office three times as a candidate for a party that supported abolishing the entire US Military and guarding the country with the Coast Guard. Please Michelle, if Bernie wins Iowa and THEN is vetted, his supporters will howl that Saint Bernie is being undermined. If he wins the nomination, Trump and the GOP will show no mercy. ALL the other major Dem candidates have had their past mistakes and positions raked over the coals. Take off the gloves with this Socialist Sacred Cow before it's too late for Liz Warren, the Democrats and the USA.
Thank you for the closely reasoned article, but, sorry, wrong, wrong, wrong, dead wrong: as in Trump would be a shoe-in against Warren. This lifelong liberal is is touch daily with smart folk from Red States, and trust me, Warren is an absolute Anathema in half the country- at least Sanders get some respect for consistency, and I haven't spoken to anyone I judge as sane who actually hates Joe Biden. And Michelle, please play fair : somehow you back the refuted claim that Sanders - (Sanders! ???)-is bigoted by citing some unnamed female who "share" such doubts. Well if these women really exist, then they share the doubts amongst themselves, NOT with Sanders, unless you want to start calling a man who has had pretty much the same platform for 50+ years a liar. In summary, I think this kind of self-delusion by leftists is going to get us at least another 4 more years of Republican presidency. Get real, and do it fast.
2
Once again Michelle Goldberg gets it wrong. You can always count on her.
Warren is a very talented candidate who has an even larger, Gene Mauch like penchant for blowing it in the pinch. There was her unfortunate decision not to run in 2015 against Hillary. If she had run Bernie never would have and Warren would be President today.
Then there was her staggeringly stupid decision to announce her geneticist findings that she probably did have some Native American ancestry and hadn't lied her way into Harvard after all. And now swiftboating Bernie. What a piece of work. Unless the Neera Tanden and the Hillary wing of the party welcome her back into the embrace of "the Democratic Family", Warren has just signed her political suicide note. No one will ever trust her again. Elizabeth Warren is apparently aiming to go down as the Ramsey McDonald of American politics.
5
I’m not sure how a candidate who lied about her ethnicity for personal gain could win. Oh and let’s not forget the anti-business, anti-growth, soak the rich, anti-pharma, anti-aviation, open borders, free everything for everyone policies.
The stock market is a discounting mechanism. Anyone notice how high it’s going? Precisely because it knows the Democrats have no credible challenger and this country will never elect a socialist.
2
Given that the general election will be between an authoritarian demagogue and a candidate who supports liberal democracy it is puzzling that there should be any question about the Democratic party uniting for the election. If the Democrats cannot unite against authoritarian rule what can they untie against? The split seems to be between the center-left which is willing to accept corporate contributions given the present rules in politics and the progressives, a populist movement that sees corporate elites controlling politicians and forming an oligarchy. Warren is on the progressive side and is calling for what amounts to class warfare against the rich. I don't she her uniting the party any more than Biden or Sanders. The party doesn't have to unite on a long-term basis but it would make no sense not to untie to defeat Trump and his authoritarian party.
I do not “detest” Bernie. In 2016, I was a monthly contributor to his campaign. But then I watched in horror as he continued his 2016 campaign long after it was clear he could not win. His supporters literally shouted over HRC as she was delivering her prime-time convention speech. It was appalling, and I have never seen something like that happen to a man.
Democrats cannot let Sanders be a spoiler again. He must be asked at this debate for his reaction to his supporters’ behavior at the 2016 convention - and specifically, what will he do going forward to bring unity to the ticket if he does not win.
I personally think a man who honeymooned in the Soviet Union will be easier for Trump to crucify than Warren just because she is a woman.
4
Whoever wins; remember the House and Senate. Obama admittedly squandered his time as President when he had both the House and Senate majority.
Congress is the power or obstacle behind any President.
Without a Democratic Senate, over 200 bills now passed by the active House under Pelosi, to benefit all Americans to live a good daily life....have gone nowhere. We need to live quality daily life instead of being constantly over squeezed to death by power struggles.
2
I’ve been wanting to support Warren for a long time. I think her heart is in the right place and she has good, if imperfect, plans. With difficulty I tolerated her claim of being indigenous. But this recent move by her to bring up her conversation with Sanders from 2 years ago right before the debate was the last straw. To describe her as someone to unite the country in the midst of this petty feud is mistiming at best, clueless at worst.
3
Her smear on Bernie yesterday is not a good look.
More important, her Medicare for All is phony -- a disaster waiting to happen.
5
I've been a fan of Ms. Warren since she first stepped into the limelight as a fierce advocate for consumer protections. She has been my favored candidate throughout this early primary season. However, her recent gaffes are discouraging.
Her claim that Sen. Sanders said something disparaging in private was as foolish as getting a DNA test and waving it around in an impossible effort to shut up Donald Trump. Given his history it seems unlikely Sanders would have said a woman can't be elected president, but even if he'd said it directly to her face claiming it in public without any corroboration is political malpractice.
I was 100% Warren coming into 2020, but I'm wary now. If she continues to be her own worst enemy, I'll be hard pressed to vote for her in the primary.
1
I was just waiting for TNYT to write a full-on hit piece on Sanders. Here it comes in the camouflage of a shout out for Warren. Disregard that Sanders has the biggest crowds, the largest number of donors, that all of the Democrats' ideas are those first and fiercely promoted by Senator Sanders?
If the Dems' establishment had not put its heavy thumb on the 2016 primaries, Sanders would have been the nominee then and we would hot now see Trump destroy democracy wrongheaded stroke by evil action.Sanders has a 4-decade record of standing for all of the people, all of the time. He's got my vote, and it looks like most of America agrees with me.
4
She's got my money and my vote and history on her side.
3
So a polarizing candidate will "unify" the Democrats?
Will she also unify the country?
2
Rightly or wrongly Warren will never live down her claim of American Indian heritage and then doubling down on it before finally apologizing for it, and were she to become the candidate we will have Pocahontas coming out of our ears. Throw in her backtracking on Medicare for All (what is her position?) and top it off with her phony beer with her husband moment and we would have a candidate ripe for ridicule and scorn. I write this as one who enthusiastically supported her but no longer do.
If she's the unity candidate then why is she making fraudulent statements about other candidates and turning people off with bogus DNA tests?
4
Alas, all the hand-wringing and musing about unity is misplaced: The only thing that matters is who can beat Trump, and she can't, regardless of whatever quality she may or may not possess (...people in Iowa stand in line to get their pictures taken with her. Really? And that somehow translates into nationwide Democratic voting in November? Seriously???). Biden is the only candidate still on stage that can possibly beat Trump, especially if Bloomberg throws his support--and millions--behind him. So, stop pitting one against the other in imaginary scenarios in order to fill a column, and focus on winning at all costs. Time to get ruthless and calculating if you really want Dems to win.
I will vote for any Democratic nominee. But I hope a woman gets the nomination. Specifically Elizabeth Warren.
Why?
1. Americans are tired of self-serving, misogynistic males. A woman of integrity can pull this country together. A woman of integrity NEEDS to pull this country together.
2. Women, it’s your time. If not now, when? Is a woman fundamentally inferior to a man? Is a woman too emotional to make rational decisions? If not, then prove it. Vote for a woman this time. Either Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar.
3. Trump can hurl sexist insults to a man but he cannot, (although he will) hurl them at a woman. If Trump does, it hurts his integrity, his chance to win. It emphasizes his misogyny.
4. Elizabeth Warren has many qualifications to be President. But for me, her integrity stands out. When government workers were laid off last time, (Congress did not fund the budget) Elizabeth Warren was the only notable person who refused a paycheck in sympathy and support of government workers. Elizabeth has integrity.
5. It’s long been proven that Elizabeth Warren fights for the ordinary person, the middle and lower classes. She has empathy for those less fortunate.
6. Elizabeth is smart.
4
That Ms Warren is the best qualified (knowledgable, by experience) candidate, little doubt remains. But, if her proposals sound too radical, she could easily be seen not as a revolutionary...but as a reactionary, as her strong ideas are 'methodically' shot down by other's selfish bombardments.
Saying this over and over again won't make it the case, Michelle. We all know that the NY Times is afraid of Sanders, but if you think, for a moment, that "unity" will come by shutting out the most principled voice of the actual left (as opposed to Warren's watered down, "Middle-Class" pandering smoke and mirrors), there is a rude awakening ahead.
Not to mention the fact that Warren is going to get absolutely crushed across the midwestern states. But it is clear that the NY Times Editors would all rather see Donald T. get re-elected, rather than support the only candidate who will actually win the election.
3
Unity? "Unacceptable" democratic candidates?
The election comes down to this for voters- Trump or no Trump. He got 46% last time. Any Dem will beat that (even the last one did, narrowly). Odds are he gets less % this time. Or do you think Dems will vote for him ever?
There is no need for a unity (unless some artisans intend to burn the house down, & Bernie has shown he can run without the Establishment very well) candidate, the vote Dem wise is already baked in, period
So what sells to not Dems? Well, ersatz Bernie was Trump's above board campaign (we know the under-the-table now), maybe the Real Thing can bring some back. Can Elizabeth do that is the question.
& is playing the victim card from a strong suit.
What would Trump do with that in the Nov run?
(LOSER!)
Let the one who generates the most voter energy win. Then get behind "them"...
1
I'm afraid at the end of the day the Pocahontas label will stickand it should. I am a 2nd generation Texas born Mexican American and Elizabeth had the gall to register as an attorney in Texas as a Native American decades past! She lied at the last debate about the wine caves when she herself had a wine tasting with a free bottle for large donors. There was no $900.00 bottle of wine.
And now she is picking on Bernie, whom I volunteered for 8 months the last cycle, but now am supporting Pete and Bloomberg A Bloomberg and Booker ticket would win.
Bernie blew his interview with the Times. Booker nailed his. Bernie is old and displayed that in that sad interview.
1
Bernie Sanders supporters who had donated to Elizabeth Warren are asking for refunds. The hashtag #RefundWarren is trending on Twitter from tweets such as, “When I contributed to Warren, I thought she’d heighten the debate, instead she has cheapened it as much as any candidate. I want my #RefundWarren.”
A few days ago, Elizabeth Warren could have been a unity candidate but not anymore.
Bernie Sanders publicly said in the 1980s that a woman could be elected president. In 2016 he did 41 events for Hillary Clinton because he believes that.
After Elizabeth Warren’s recent lie that he told her a woman can’t win when nobody else was in the room, Warren can’t be a unity candidate.
3
At least Goldberg is honest enough to state her bias and conflict of interest, but her oracular tone is most obnoxious. Elizabeth Warren's backers are a direct line to her record. Her leftoid migration and consumer advocacy are of fairly recent vintage, as opposed to Bernie Sanders whose record as an activist for leftist causes goes back to his adolescence. Although she comes from a working class family, Warren became a Republican, a brilliant corporate lawyer and professor of corporate law at Harvard, instructing the next generation of corporate protectors. She amassed considerable wealth advocating on behalf of her clients against individuals, including coal miners, who'd brought suit against them.
To her credit, she brought her legal skills to the Democratic Party where she was particularly effective as a consumer advocate. In 2005, she humiliated Joe Biden during a Senate Banking and Finance Committee hearing on bankruptcy reform which he opposed. In the last debate, she and Buttigieg engaged in mutual gotcha confrontation over big bucks fund raising only to be silenced by Sanders whose campaign is solely funded by small donations. Donald Trump will attack her mercilessly, not least for her inconsistency. If Warren couldn't stand-up to a lightweight like Mayor Pete, how does Goldberg think her husband's client will manage against the King of the Pig People?
This has only been up for a few hours and it's already aged remarkably poorly. Oops.
None of the Dems can beat Trump. And I’m a Dem.
2
This kind of article is of the same type I read 4 years ago that drove Bernie supporters to vow to never vote for Hillary Clinton. When will we ever learn. We don't need to a hatchet job on Bernie once again, and we certainly don't need a circular firing squad.
2
Warren lied about her Indian Heritage. She lied about being fired from her teaching position because she was pregnant. Now she lies about what Bernie said in a private conversation and this lie will lead to both of their downfalls. Joe Biden will be the benefactor and will emerge the victor because of Warren’s miscalculation.
What unadulterated "baloney." You want unity, let the people have their choice - and that may well be Bernie Sanders.
2
Another great take by Michelle Goldberg who has a wonderful way of troubleshooting her own opinions as she writes. If there were a debate format without the usual conflict-inducing trivial questions by anchors from competing MSM networks, Sen Warren might have a better chance of showing how practical and essential her plans really are instead of having to prove a woman can win against Trump. The "far-left" moniker seen in so many of the NYTimes "Comments" section, which btw is curated by Alphabet- Google machine-learning technology, must refer to liberal social policies and civil rights. As for qualifications, Warren was a full professor at tier schools for decades and if needed could probably raise an army of Ph.Ds like Robert Reich to help assemble plenty of research-based quantitative "proof" for anything she puts forth.
This kind of article is of the same type I read 4 years ago that drove Bernie supporters to vow to never vote for Hillary Clinton. When will we ever learn? We don't need to a hatchet job on Bernie once again, and we certainly don't need a circular firing squad.
2
Michelle you've been drinking too much of your husband's Warren Kool-Aid and therefore should recuse yourself from commenting on the candidates. Although Bernie denied the Warren backers quote I agree with it. Two things I dislike about Warren are her "Medicare for all" stance and letting herself be drawn in to the whole Native American controversy. Personally I like Kobuchar and Bloomberg, but I will vote for a donkey rather than Trump.
1
Some say the world will end in fire; some say in ice. From what I've tasted of desire I hold with those for favor fire; … I know that Hate is also great and ice would suffice. Robert Frost...
Misogyny might well suffice.... and besides she's white and not entirely part of the East Coast establishment... so... I adore Warren, signed the petition to put her on the primary ballot.. but am not sure that she can win....so far as the general election... Trump is excellent at the tightrope dance-- but in the end-- we are all responsible for our own actions and should not need bunches of laws and alwyers to make sure we do the right thing. PS. We should have Single payer universal healthcare (and people can buy whatever concierge coverage they desire) -There's a lot of fixing to do after the awful presidents we've had starting with Regan.
1
What about black voters? Bernie has made an effort to reach out to the black community and is doing a better job than last time. What is Warren doing?
Senator Warren is not a unifier. She paints all people who work in finance and/or have become wealthy (ethically and through hard work) as greedy criminals whether they follow the rules or not. She is anti-business no matter what business you happen to be a part of. She is definitely not my preferred candidate. In the primary, I will vote for the Democrat who I think will be the best president. That said, I will not have a problem voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is (Warren, garden gnome, hologram, etc.) because four more years of unrestrained lawlessness and additional Supreme Court picks will damage our country for generations.
You are all missing the point: Bernie's turn has come. It's gonna be irresistible.
(I like Warren; she would probably be my second choice -- but let's not forget that she was a Republican during the Reagan Era, while Bernie was probably the only American mainstream politician openly defending the Centro-American nations that were then being raped, torn in pieces by the US and its local far-right goons.)
1
Elizabeth Warren is the candidate pro the unity of the left.
I’m afraid she will outrage the Anti-Hillary mad hatters in the Center and on the right even more.
Until our system collapses and the executive is chosen by a parliament of multiple parties we will never know the will of the people.
It’s like with soda. If you have only coke and pepsi, who knew people wanted fruit spritzers.
1
Do you really want anybody but Trump? Well; here is his achilles heel........
Before Trump was elected, his people held negotiations with an ethnic Russian Mayor of a city in Ukraine adjacent to the Russian border to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, Russia. That was before the election. Was the Tower intended as a safe house in a protected area that is controversial? Is the Ukrainian barrage of Biden claims of wrongdoing intended as a diversion? might be. Why did Trump want to build a Trump Tower in Moscow during his campaign? You know it raises questions.
How did Mueller miss this? It's deep.
1
Elizabeth Warren is not my first choice as President. I should like to see her as Secretary of the Treasury. However, I would enthusiastically vote for her if she becomes the Democratic candidate. Her qualifications in every field are unquestionably excellent and I think she would do this country proud as its leader, especially in the job of undoing the damage done by Trump, who shall forever remain an embarrassment on America's historical record.
2
I prefer Warren to Sanders because she is a Democrat and he is an Independent. Like it or not, someone who has worked within the party is different than someone who has worked with the party. They have similar programs.
I have always admired the way Elizabeth spoke up to the powers that be, "schooled" them as it were, when they were ripping off the average person. Just got a kick out of watching her do this, well before she became a candidate.
I still haven't decided amongst them all, but between the two, I prefer Warren. I do want healthcare for all, but I'm not thrilled with anything that leaves a large number of people worse off. But practically, I'm not sure that version would get through the legislature anyway.
2
Warren is my favorite by far. But the one thing I don't understand is how (or even why) private insurance should be abolished.
In Germany and other similar nations where there is a public healthcare option, there is also private insurance available.
We have social security for all, but everyone is welcome to have a Roth or some other retirement account. She should clarify if she means private insurance will be illegal or just unnecessary.
As a moderate independent swing voter, I would not support Warren. she might unify the Democrats, but would get few votes from the unaffiliated. I would support Klobuchar, Pete or, relunctantly, Uncle Joe. Warren is the least appealing candidate to me.
2
An article about uniting the Democratic Party that does not mention or consider its African-American base is, unfortunately, myopic. I like Warren. I like Michelle Goldberg. But wow.
@Kevin um I mis-parsed that / what is unfortunate is *that the article doesn't recognize* the role of African Americans in the Dem base...
Rubbish. In the first debate, Trump will address Warren as "Pocahontas" and bring down the house. In more or less the same moment, 90 percent of the electorate will remember that it mistrusts - quite rightly - anyone associated with Harvard. Warren is both preachy and opportunistic - the worst of both worlds.
4
Warren is the best bet to bring the country together.
I don't know why NYT just doesn't endorse her already.
She is a transformative figure. What she brings to the table is far more than her healthcare plan.
Anyone that thinks the current healthcare system, that focuses on shareholders' profits and executive salaries and bonuses, and not actual, quality care, is in denial or delusional.
The system is broken. The country is broken. America needs change and transformation.
Warren 2020.
1
Actually, you're very typical of many of the columnists here (i.e. Jill Filipovic) who claim their favorite candidate is the only one who can beat Trump, and give questionable evidence for it. I find your alleged arguments in support of this self-serving and forced. What you are really saying is simply that Elizabeth Warren is the candidate of your preference. Joe Biden supporters can also come up with all the data they want to back up their man as the only one who can win. Geez, even Andrew Yang supporters are doing it.
And it's incredible how you mention that "many Democrats" are supposedly still upset for Bernie hurting Hillary Clinton's chances. Those of us with better memories know that it was in fact Sanders backers who were furious when it can became known that the DNC had been favoring her over Clinton all along — which should have been obvious.
Sorry, Michelle, but you, like a lot of other talking heads, have a hard time accepting that it is in fact the voters who will decide who will be the candidate, not you.
It's curious that Sanders expects the DNC to enthusiastically support him when he isn't a member of the party and his tepid (at best) support of HRC might have cost her the 2016 election. But this is the same party that endorses Ilhan Omar, who strongly supports sanctions against Israel while arguing that those against Iran are immoral. And we can't deport illegal immigrants (this is more like a war crime than merely immoral), who should get free health insurance, which costs me $10K per year. But they can advance any of their candidates, I don't care, I'l sooner vote for Satan.
what world are you living in lady? She completely alienates the centrist base that is the power source for the Democratic Party. She is an incredibly unrealistic proponent for programs and policies that can never get through whatever Congress is elected!!! So where does that get us????
Perhaps a bit less radical than Bernie but not enough. The far out left Gang of four in the House do NOT represent the center of the party and never will! They just represent their constituents after all!
I want to defeat Trump, not rally young left voters who don't even begin to understand what we need to throw the rascal out!!!!!
3
Not anymore! Her attempt to smear BERNIE Sanders has dimmed her luster. What was she thinking? Shameful.
1
"Free stuff and no way to pay for it"
Not only is she a fraud, she's a gutless fraud. (borrowed from The Sting)
If Liz is an American Indian, then we're all American Indians. And don't quote the Boston Globe story saying it didn't help her career. She wouldn't have put it on her Bar application nor her faculty directory if she didn't think it would help her career. Kudos to Trump for holding her accountable for not just building her career on a lie but playing identity politics and hurting true native Americans.
She wasn't fired because she was pregnant. She quit because she chose to go to law school. Bald face lie.
The "Medicaid for All" champion now is going to do it in her third year? This absurd flip-flop happened after she told us how she would finance the free stuff without raising middle class taxes. Her proposals were so devoid of reality the WSJ called it a "fairy tale". Numbers suddenly cut in half, billions taken from the military. Gutless fraud.
Then claiming Trump killed Suleimani to divert from the impeachment fraud hurt our national interests. Give credit where it's due-Republicans credited Obama for killing Bin Laden and al-Alawki. The latter was an American citizen and had hurt no one. The Iranians attacked our embassy, killed an American, and injured 40. That's why now! Giving our enemies ammunition to question our motives is dangerous.
Taking the insurance I paid for away from me isn't socialist it's Marxist.
Flip-flopping is gutless.
3
I'd like to see a Biden/Warren ticket. Like corporate reality, Uncle Joe could be the front man and Warren could do the work.
Goldberg seems like she’s taking cues from the Trump Administration when she says we need to take her views seriously even though she has a major conflict-of-interest related to those specific views. I thought only swampy politicians talked out of both sides of their mouth, not so-called NYT journalists.
2
The Democrats lost in 2016 because Clinton was, at best, the "eat your vegetables" candidate. You remember, those boiled Brussels sprouts that you ate because Mom said they were good for you and you had to, but that didn't mean you liked them at all.
Biden is "Eat Your Vegetables" II.
Klobuchar thinks she can actually convince you that boiled Brussels sprouts taste good, because that's how they eat them in the Midwest, and because the country can't do any better at Brussels sprouts anyway.
Buttigieg at least wants to season the Brussels sprouts and roast them properly -- and add some kale, but somehow the dinner still seems incomplete.
Yang wants to give you a thousand bucks so you can buy all the Brussels sprouts you want. But wait -- are robots harvesting all those Brussels sprouts?
Sanders says "forget the sprouts! Dessert for everyone!"
Warren says "we're a really rich country. We can make the economy work fairly so that everyone can afford to eat a healthy dinner of their choice -- and we'll pay a living wage to the produce pickers and the meat packing plant workers and the dessert bakers and the supermarket employees. And we're going to make sure the FDA does its job so all the food is safe. And we're going to give everyone access to doctors and dietitians to help them choose the right foods for themselves and their families."
Let's not make the same mistake as we made in 2016.
1
This is pretty ironic given that every time somebody disagrees with her during a debate she essentially accuses them of being a Republican. I like a lot of her ideas, but don't see her as unifying the progressive and moderate wings - only Trump can do that.
2
This column would have resonated with me a month or two ago but Warren has lost me -- and apparently a lot of other potential voters. She is increasingly taking on the worst characteristics of a modern politician. I've noticed at recent televised town halls and debates she increasingly does not answer the question put in front of her. Everyone does that, but she's doing more than she used to. Not thrilled about her disclosing information that was private and apparently confidential to damage Sanders, either. Perhaps she was reacting to what Ms Goldberg called obnoxious behavior on the part of Sanders' campaign, but justifying obnoxious behavior because the other guy did it is, again, politics as usual. And I'm not sure Hillary was the aggrieved party in the 2016 nomination battle. The DNC clearly favored Clinton (people lost their jobs over the bias). Who knows if Sanders would have beaten Trump? But the perception that the party influenced the fact he didn't get the opportunity to challenge him was responsible, as much as anything, for a less-than-enthusiastic embrace of Clinton by the progressive wing of the party. Sanders is surging among progressives because he just looks like a more authentic representative of those ideals right now. Warren is responsible for that.
1
There appear to be two camps of Democrats.
First, there are those that believe winning in 2020 requires winning the center, which means nominating a candidate who appeals to moderates, Independents and disenchanted Republicans, while holding steady to core Democratic principals.
Second, is the camp that believes focusing on the center is a fools game and the path to victory is "energizing" the progressive base and turning out more minority and young voters.
It seems like very few people believe that both can be accomplished under any of the candidates still running. Warren and Sanders more clearly appeal to the progressive left, while Biden and Buttigieg appeal to the center-left.
Where the progressives fall down is (1) on the lack of widespread appeal of progressive ideology, in particular in swing states, and (2) the actual value of turning out more Blue voters in already Blue states.
I know the progressives here will take umbrage with these points and it's very early to be making predictions, but I can't help but keep going back to the fact that Bernie's support is consistent but he's never polled above 26% support among Democrats, let alone ALL VOTERS, and Warren's campaign is flagging thanks to her gaffes on M4A and campaign donations from corporations. If these two candidates can't beat Joe Biden in the polls then that should tell us all that it isn't quite the time for the Democrats to be pushing a progressive platform to win a national campaign.
1
Personally, I do not think a NYTimes staff member with a husband working with E. Warren should be writing about E. Warren. And frankly, neither my opinion (a CA resident) nor Ms. Goldberg's opinion matter much. Those in PA, MI, and WI (and maybe OH) will pick the next president. To Ms. Goldberg and all the others (including me) who lust for Trump's defeat, please focus on the only issue: who can carry PA, MI and WI. I will vote in the CA primary but to repeat, IT MEANS NOTHING. Everyday get up and say PA, MI and WI and then repeat before bed. Ask yourself not who would be the best president or who will unite the Democrats. Ask who has the best chance of winning PA, MI and WI. My answer is Joe.
5
Michelle, Please read the polls in the battleground states. Unless we're nominating someone who can win Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc. it's a lost cause. Warren sounds great in the Harvard Yard... Outside that bubble, not so much.
Democrats would be wise to end the purity tests, and course-correct away from Sanders and Warren, unless they want a Supreme Court dominated for generations by Trump appointees. Let's get with the program!
2
Factionalism didn't lose the last election.
Let's start with unfair treatment if Sanders by the DNC and media..... Next let's just say that when I heard the slogan "I'm with her" well it doesn't sound that good, and she ran a horrible campaign not visiting whole swaths of the country.
Next add her relationship with the big banks. Add in Comey and the hacking and it's not surprising she lost.
Let's call it what it was. But let's not dwell on that & get the vote out in 2020. Enough about 2016
2
Michele Goldberg’s strategic political commentary confirms the NYT’s sorry state. Goldberg and the NYT are apparently incapable of accurately assessing today’s political realities. If Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie for that matter, are the Democratic nominees for president, the party would suffer epic, historical losses that would make the McGovern and Dukakis nominations look rational in comparison.
Trump in a landslide.
3
Nonsense.
Betsy ' Pocahontas' Warren is a 70+ year old white woman Harvard Professor with fake hair color who fell fast and foolishly for Trump's caricatured tweets nicknames and slurs.
Warren's eager beaver 'I have a plan' recalls the devastating critique of Hubert Humphrey, that he has more solutions than there are problems. Americans aren't craving a detailed principled policy answer to every microscopic issue facing them.
The most loyal and long suffering base of the Democratic Party is black African American. Particularly black African American Protestant women.
Why should they be excited and motivated to turn out for Warren?
Hillary Clinton won 92% of the black voting minority including 88% of black men and 95% of black women. But turnout was down 11% from peak Obama. Warren has a tenuous relationship with black African America.
4
Bennet!!!! Come on people.
1
Wow, you are honest. But do all the candidates get to have a staffer write and angsty missive on behalf of the person they get to hear about everyday.
Honesty doesn't unring the bell.
1
“Many believe [Sanders] weakened Hillary Clinton by dragging out the primary — at one point even threatening a contested convention — and then only halfheartedly rallying his fans behind her when it was over.”
Shame on Michelle for repeating those mainstream-media echo chamber lies.
Given what we know about the DNC and HRC’s collusion via the Podesta emails and Donna Brazil, I’m surprised Sanders did 39 campaign appearances in support of HRC:
“When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
Re: the lie that Sanders didn’t campaign hard for Clinton:
“As Sanders finished his speech in Raleigh—“We have to do everything that we can to elect Secretary Clinton!”—Clinton and Pharrell were on their feet, cheering. “Wow!” Clinton said, when she took to the rostrum. “Whew! I gotta say, after hearing from these two extraordinary men, I feel all fired up and ready to go for the next five days!”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/bernie-sanderss-hard-fight-for-hillary-clinton/amp
Hillary lost mainly because she couldn’t generate anything near the level of enthusiasm Sanders and Warren ignite daily.
4
Sorry, but if your husband is working for Warren, you shouldn't be writing this. The Times should have higher standards than this.
There's too much conflict of interest in government and business. We don't need it in journalism.
You're one of my favorite writers and Warren's my favorite candidate, but fair is fair.
5
"...I have a conflict of interest — my husband is consulting for Warren’s campaign."
You're right Michelle, you shouldn't be writing about the primaries, at least not voicing any opinions.
Your bias is implicit.
4
No, she isn't.
She panders endlessly. I fear that she sees it worked for Trump, so she's trying it, too.
Her #1 proposal, MfA, went down in flames because Pete Buttigieg called her out on it. Thanks again, Pete!
A person as smart as she is must have known she was being disingenuous at best.
She's a brazen hypocrite. See cave, wine. (Thanks again, Kathryn & Craig Hall!) Elizabeth is as pure as the driven slush.
She voted for Ronald Reagan. Ronald. Reagan.
If she's the nominee, I'll vote for her. But I'll need several clothespins to do it.
And I think Trump will eat her alive. Sometimes, Elizabeth's voice quavers, you know.
You know who can stare people down and whose voice never quavers? You know, fearless?
I'm voting for Pete Buttigieg.
1
Unity candidate. Do you even read the Times reporting? Her campaign has caused the embarrassing spectacle of two old people trying to remember what they actually said in a private meeting over a year ago.
1
Elizabeth Warren is the Dems unity candidate. She is the most divisive candidate. America is ever ready for a woman president but not for a divisive woman candidate. It would be like going from frying pan to fire. Why is Warren directing her fire at Bernie? Hillary tried that in 2016 and what was the outcome? Bernie's Democratic supporters stayed home or voted for Jill stein or Trump.
Today's debate will give a big boost to the wanna bee nominees of the democratic party and questions on foreign policy of Trump will hopefully get debated, I hope. Identity politics has reached the end of the ropes, the democratic party is hanging on. No African American, no native Americans, no Hispanic and Yang no longer in the debate left, Democratic party as the diverse party is in big trouble with a lot of non whites in the party but no chiefs.
3
Unfortunately, American voters do not view competence, intelligence, lots of specific plans for the future as pluses (see Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton). Voters like entertainment; vague attacks on shadowy forces pushing them down and vaguer promises, humorous names given to opponents, funny hats and t-shirts, not someone with specific programs for every issue. Warren, like many of the Democrats running for president is not the fun aunt or crazy uncle, she is that strict school teacher who made you memorize the periodic table.
2
“...middle aged women who dominate the Resistance”. Referring to anti-Trumpsters as the Resistance is insulting to the men and women in France who actually risked their lives fighting Hitler. The subtextual assumption that Trump is equivalent to Hitler reveals the historical ignorance of its claimants. You insult middle aged women.
2
Working people have nothing in common with the NYT or Ms. Goldberg. You can ignore and smear and slam and they are still living paycheck to paycheck, dying from lack of health care and drowning in college debt. They'll vote for someone who'll fight for them. It's Bernie.
3
Michelle, good points. But the VP candidate has to be a black female - will 2 women do it? Gotta ask.
Michelle,
Your article is a little late. Liz Warren just said that Bernie doesn't think a woman couldn't be elected President. I think it is a lie and that Bernie isn't that stupid even if he believed it. Your "unity" candidate has become its nightmare candidate. I liked it best when after she said what Bernie said she replied" I have no Interest in discussing this private meeting any further". She only wanted to say what would keep Bernie from being nominated. She is one cold and calculating woman.
2
The first sentence in this article should have noted that the writer’s husband works with the Warren campaign.
6
Given your conflict of interest, it is questionable whether you should write about Warren at all. But to write and not disclose your conflict until the fourth paragraph is quite duplicitous. The honorable thing to do would be to recluse yourself from any discussion about Warren, and certainly never act as her cheerleader.
6
“I’ve hesitated to write too much about the Democratic primary because I have a conflict of interest — my husband is consulting for Warren’s campaign.”
That’s good enough for me to stop reading. And you should heed your own words and stop writing about it.
6
I am so sick and tired of Hillary's supporters rolling out the old lie that Bernie Sanders "only halfheartedly rallied his fans behind her when it was over."
Bernie Sanders worked his butt off for Hillary Clinton in the general election campaign. He told his supporters to vote for Clinton, and never tired of telling them that.
Hillary Clinton's loss was her own fault. She alienated Sanders supporters. She alienated voters. She failed to campaign in swing states. She hoovered up millions from Goldman Sachs and other investment banks in speaking fees before the election.
So stop blaming Hillary's loss on Bernie. And while you're talking about anger, don't forget the seething anger of Bernie supporters at the timid, stand-for-nothing Hillary wing of the party.
3
The competent, hardworking woman never wins.
3
Like you, Ms. Goldberg, I have hopes for Warren. But. like you, I fear the push-back against another woman candidate. Perhaps a Biden/Warren ticket would be the best compromise, uniting the centrists and the progressive factions. I'm honestly not a big fan of Biden's but this ticket, if successful, could give Warren four years to prove her worth before the 2024 elections. Also, she knows how to deal with people like McConnell and Graham. People who hold her stand on Medicare for All against her need to remember that to pass such a plan takes a fairly unified Congress. Something not likely to happen in our lifetimes.
Warren 2020!
Vote Democratic 2020!
2
Right on, Michelle!
1
Not even close. Sadly she will split the party further and will not be able to bring back those in the middle that voted Republican.
4
"I’ve heard from many people that they’ve never felt as passionate about a candidate as they do about her."
I also heard that back in 1972, famed writer Pauline Kael didn't know of a single person who voted for Richard Nixon and was stunned at his victory.
Aren't bubbles grand.
2
Goldberg deserves much respect for her truthful intelligent reporting. I was disappointed to see she is making an endorsement of Warren. Polls be damned, in my view, Warren and Biden are unelectable.
1
"I’ve hesitated to write too much about the Democratic primary...." Thanks for this, even though it didn't seem to work.
2
I can only suppose that Ms. Goldberg wrote this piece before four anonymous sources who were not even the room accused Bernie Sanders of telling Senator Warren that a woman could never be President in 2018. Warren, strategically, has decided to remain noticeably silent.
I am neither a Sanders or a Warren supporter, but a unifying candidate does not traffic in identity politics and innuendo (ie lies).
Let’s leave that to the con man in the White House.
2
Hard to read this knowing the author’s husband is consulting for Warren’s campaign. Like a judge who needs to recuse her/himself from a case, this doesn’t seem fair.
2
@A The brazen sense of entitlement, "The usual rules don't apply to me" is downright Trumpian.
So glad to see someone come out for Warren.
She can win it.
Hmmm, I was scrolling down the top stories at Google and came across this one, just below all the "a woman can't become President" ones.
I'm not so sure I'd call it unity.
1
Now desperate Liz has taken to lying about her rivals, pulling the identity card like she tried to with her deceitful claim to be Native American. No mention was made of how poorly she polls in the swing states compared with the other candidates. Her class and identity warfare is hardly unifying.
2
Sanders' comments to Warren about a 'woman being unable to win the presidency' are being completely misconstrued by the pundit class. In any rational conversation, especially among podcasters such as Ms. Goldberg, the viability of a female presidential candidate is thoughtfully discussed in regards to a presumably sexist electorate. These pundits should be well aware that this statement is less a reflection on Sanders' personal attitudes towards female presidential candidates, than it is an indictment of the unenlightened masses of America that believe women are unsuitable leaders. Sanders' statement is a practical allusion to a sexist reality - it is not, however, a condemnation of Warren's presidential aspirations singularly because she is a woman.
That being said, Warren is smartly playing the gender card to drum up crucial support before the all-important Iowa caucus - which is expert, slippery, dirty politicking. It shows a candidate that is willing to play a more insidious game, which personally I respect.
My vote is for Warren.
1
About Julian Castro's endorsement, I doubt it was because he though Warren is the best candidate: he's calculating that if any of the leading men win, Democratic identity politics will dictate that a woman will have to be the running mate. So he's placing his bet on the highest polling woman, figuring his chances of getting the #2 spot are better with Warren. Of the male candidates who would be considered for vice president, the same PC imperative would give the advantage to a POC. This narrows the field considerably for Castro, altho it would not be a slam dunk. In case there was any confusion as to what Person of Color really means to Democrats, DNC chair Tom Perez made it clear in a recent interview on msnbc with Al Sharpton: referring to the several debates in 2019, Perez noted that there were two people of color on the stage. POC is just another synonym, like "diverse," for black.
2
I disagree. I think Elizabeth Warren has a good heart but she has BAD political instincts and sometimes can just be goofy--that's ok if you are a man, but women aren't allowed. Still a sexist political world!
I think Amy Klobachar is the consensus candidate. She is a PROGRESSIVE PRO CHOICE FEMINIST who is sensible and understands first hand the struggles of the working class. When she says she brings people together and can win over Red state voters--she's got the evidence to support her!
Her bio (and her husbands) demonstrates that she is a real contender for the votes of every day Americans--a decent and highly intelligent leader who will work to get things done!! Vote Amy!!
Amy Klobuchar is smarter, tougher, could rally the Dems better, and she's infinitely more electable.
The notion of Warren as a peacemaker seems terribly flawed, especially since she's responsible for much of the conflict.
Adopting a victim attitude regarding when Bernie supposedly told her that a woman couldn't get elected president is a sad commentary. Is she that thin skinned?
1
Michelle--
I love your column. Your insight and intelligence is much appreciated. But I have a problem with this one: I can't help but wonder if this column is but a platform for blasting out your husband's latest messaging advice to the Warren camp: 'the unity candidate'. If you have a conflict, beyond disclosing it, you should recuse yourself from beating the drum for your husband's client. Just saying.
2
Slandering Sanders with an obvious distortion is not the behavior of a "unity candidate." The script that was sent out was completely innocuous (and also factually correct), and the notion that he didn't campaign hard enough for Hilary Clinton is absolute bunkum. The only reason Bernie is "despised" by some Democrats is because the corporate wing of the establishment resents him. Who has the real claim to being a victim of injustice here? Clinton, who was a horrendous candidate that couldn't defeat the most absurdly comical and longshot candidate in modern American history? Or Bernie, against whom the DNC fought tooth and nail despite his enormous popularity? The grievances of those who dislike Bernie are beyond absurd. This article also rests on the assumption that Warren is palatable to the young progressive wing of the party, which is incorrect. We will swallow our pride and vote for Warren if we have to, but the crucial ideological differences between her and Bernie are apparent to us. They only seem illusory or unimportant to the pundit class because they don't understand the vision of the movement that supports Bernie. Finally, her political instincts are terrible, her campaign is poorly run, she has made countless unforced errors, and she stands to lose against Trump whereas Bernie actually has a shot. Disappointing but not unexpected take from the Op-Ed page.
3
I understand the appeal of Warren, however, I think she is way too idealistic in terms of what she thinks SHE can make happen. For a while, I got weary of all her "I have a plan for that" platitudes. Something is missing with her that I've yet to put my finger on. In any case, Ms. Goldberg is off track is she sees Warren as the unity candidate ~ and, frankly, given her admission about the work of her husband, probably ought to kept her mouth shut. It is regrettable that the diversity level who the field continues to dwindle, so my preference is that whoever the candidate is that they choose a running mate who is African American.
2
Warren's responses to claims, denied by Sanders, that he has attacked her supporters and told her a woman cant win in 2020, settles for me her ability to unify. Instead of seeing whether Sanders actually did the former or remembering that he didnt actually tell her that, Warren was off on to attack him. As far as 2016, there are plenty of us lifelong Democrats who held our noses to vote for another Clinton given their records over the previous 30 years. Hillary ran an incompetent campaign against Trump. To blame Sanders for Trump is silly, petty and vindictive. If Dems keep this up, no candidate could win against Trump. As far as Goldberg's conflict of interest, isnt THAT patently clear ?
2
If she represents unity for the democrats, you have my sincerest sympathies.
2
I’d love to see a woman president but not another a la Hillary policy wonk who would be better suited for a cabinet position. I don’t want a woman who apologizes for who she is. (Are you listening Ms. Klobuchar?). Why lie about stupid stuff like being fired, when the records indicate otherwise?
Having a plan that doesn’t add up is not a plan!
She is a sincere public servant but not presidential. As an independent former Dem, I want someone more pragmatic than pie in the sky progressives who want everything free and are as self righteous in their liberalism as they accuse the conservatives of being.
Give me Bloomberg, practical, data driven, executive experience in government and the private sector. I can live without warm and fuzzy.
Give me Biden who understands that segregationists, like it or not, are also citizens who are part of our national dialog and therefore have to be spoken to. Our current, cancel culture politics is not working.
Ms. Warren and/or Bernie are not going to unify us.
1
I was fortunate to have met Elizabeth Warren when she was talking to voters around Mass to determine whether to run for the U. S. Senate.
I had lived on Manhattan's Upper West Side before retiring to Pittsfield, MA 15 years ago. I was used to qualified politicians such as Rep. Gerrold Nadler and I was taken with Warren's knowledge and genuineness. She knew the issues, had sound ideas and did not sound like a politician.
Also, I believe that she has learned from the Pocahontas incident and would hold her own ono-on-one to Trump.
Any Democrat can, and will, win if we turn out and vote for our candidate in historic numbers. I choose Elizabeth Warren as my first choice. I believe she has the ability and ethics to be an excellent president. She understands what blocks fixes in our broken government. I'm heartened by the number of women who ran for president in the Democratic primaries. I am happy that this time the media didn't obsess about what they were wearing and what their hair looked like. That's progress and maybe it's helped many men to consider our women candidates seriously. Bernie is further down my list of choices but I will vote for him if he wins the nomination. I pray that Dems and Independents show up in record numbers and vote against four more years of division and corruption by the Trump regime.
1
I understand it is superficial but I find the cardigan sweaters and school marm persona grating. It seems calculated. I don't know that she can win.
3
My thoughts on Elizabeth Warren are the opposite of this column. While she has many talents and is clearly a person worthy of being president, she is not a unity candidate. Things just appear differently for those of us living outside the progressive echo chamber which this article reflects as well as most of the comments. And I might add my thoughts are basically the same with regard to Bernie Sanders. Progressives are not unity candidates.
4
"The reason it caused a small uproar is that in much of the Democratic Party, there’s tremendous resentment of Sanders left over from 2016. Many believe he weakened Hillary Clinton by dragging out the primary..."
What is left out of this article is the fact that the Democratic Party squelched Bernie out in 2016. And so did the media including the NY Times. The Democratic Party is split between the centrist and leftist sectors. The centrists and monied interests were threatened by Sanders determination to confront corporatists and big money and backed Hillary with a vengeance. In fact the Democrats needed the money she brought in and were frightened to lose it. So they chose Hillary and it worked to some extent. She won the popular vote but not the electoral college and so now we have what we have. But perhaps the charisma of Donald Trump might have been better matched by the charisma of Bernie whose populist agenda is actually real while Trump's is not. Maybe the people are waking up to the fact that the people have been duped by Dems who give voice to genuine concerns but who are stymied by the moneys they depend on. How can you truly support Medicare for All when you depend on money from Big Pharma, the Insurance and Medical industries? How can you support a Green New Deal when you rely on Big Oil to support your campaign? I'm disappointed in this article and in Michele Goldberg for this omission. Let's get real.
1
Goldberg is not remembering the salient point of Sanders' efforts in 2016 - above anyone else running, he was the only democrat who was seen as likely to beat Trump. How can you overlook that fact.
1
Thank you, Ms. Goldberg. To cultural misogynists and "electability" doubters (here's looking at you, @NYTimes), please take a look at Rachel Bitecofer's work and the newly published data from FlipNC https://flipnc.org/2018-turnout-analysis, which shows that voter turnout of progressive, infrequent and new voters was the true cause of the blue wave, not finding some moderates who might, just might, vote for a Democrat. And look at Ibram X. Kendi's piece in the Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/other-swing-voter/604474/ to see another things the Dems and pundits are getting wrong. Stop looking for the elusive moderate voter and start looking at who has the best policies, ideas and ferocity to be the change we need. Elizabeth Warren is brilliant, organized, clear eyed, compassionate and well aware of what we need to do to save our democracy and keep the planet habitable for homo sapiens and other living creatures...and she won't waver. She has a good track record of holding folks accountable but also being able to create consensus. And she is not beholden to corporate special interests.
2
I am a lifelong liberal Democrat and Warren is not my idea of a unity candidate. She's a crusader, a missionary against the evils of big banks, insurance companies, and her all-purpose villain, "billionaires". (Personally, I'm glad Bloomberg and Steyer can toss money at things I believe in.) But Warren just wants to take a sledge hammer to everything she's mad at, and she's mad at everything. How is that the unity candidate?
3
Elizabeth Warren is the Unity candidate?
This woman has attacked more Democratic candidates than any other person running. She attacked Buttigieg for accepting donations from billionaires when she has billionaires funding her campaign.
She falsely accused Bernie Sanders of saying a woman can't win during a private convo, breeching their agreement. There are videos showing Bernie saying a woman can win.
Warren also falsely claimed to be Native American for decades, filling a slot at Harvard Law that otherwise would have been for a minority.
She told a voter her kids went to public school when they attend expensive private schools. She said she was the first nursing mom to take the NJ Bar and more.
Warren is not an honest person that can bring people together.
5
Warren is the unity candidate all right. That left-wing extremist would united independents like me to hold their collective noses and vote for Trump.
2
Yet here you are. Campaigning for Warren on your employer's Opinion page. It's all good, and I should expect nothing better than for you to promote your self-interests. It's in vogue these days. I don't worry too much about Warren's past embellishments, but if she made this stuff up about Sanders, then your husband should look for new work.
4
@John - wait, what? Who?
Once a Republican, astute, piercing, cool-headed, a genuine progressive, Warren seems the only candidate that can neutralize Trump in a debate. I think the others will overshoot or undershoot the mark and feed the current presidents ego or his base's ire.
1
She lied about her being a Native American. She lied about her reason for quitting teaching. She lied about her children’s private school education, She lied about taking money from mega corporations and banks. I think she lies even more than Trump.
If your criteria is character, she is not a good choice for president.
4
Warren is the antidote to Trump. She is the unity candidate for many reasons, one of which is that she is a woman. The many men I know think it's time for a woman president. And many women I know feel the same. It's time for a woman president and Warren is the woman for the job.
That's not all: Warren knows that corruption has diseased our democracy. She's the antidote for that too.
1
"She excites the middle-aged women who dominate the Resistance as well as the young people Democrats"
Excellent point, particularly the Resistance, it's still out there smoldering, waiting for someone like "Elizabeth" to light that fire.
I think the world of her, she has backbone like no other, remember how she stood up to the Wallstreeters and Bankers. She be in a hearing and listening to their blathering about how bad it was. Elizabeth would kill them straight in the eye and say, you belong in jail.
I honestly believe any one of the Democratic Candidates can beat Trump. Why, because down deep most voters know he is the wrong person for our Democracy.
Whoops! She's the "Democrats Unity Candidate?"?
It hasn't turned out to be great timing for this column...
And this is definitely not one of Michelle Goldberg's finer moments.
5
The "Bernie Bro" is a real thing. He doesn't think much about women and how and why they are still second-class citizens. Nor one way or another about "wokeness" , diversity or minorities. He doesn't like oligarchs, anti-unionism, or forever wars. He is a minority sub-set in the Bernie movement. He stayed home or voted for Trump after his fears of the elite power-brokers in the Democratic establishment and their allies in the media, put their thumbs on the scale for Hillary.
I've yet to see or hear a high profile Democratic woman Sanders advocate. Yes , Bernie's support for women's issues (health, equal pay, abortion rights is unassailable. I have no problem voting for him.
Warren is expected to provide every single detail of how to pay for Medicare For All, while Bernie gets a free pass for his "honesty" about raising everyone's taxes to fund it. But Warren is "dishonest" and " inauthentic" (a duplicitous, scheming harpie know-it-all). The Republicans, the media and the Bernie-Bros will use her gender against her and tar her with the Hillary brush.
And she now makes the mistake of accusing Bernie personally of sexism, for supposedly telling her that a woman is unelectable. The sub-text to this latest drama is the male paranoia over cancellation culture and @Metoo. She'll be accused of "playing the gender card".
Instead of the teaching moment America needs about civility, respect and unity --it just got tribal. And that dooms Dem campaigns and candidates.
3
@John C AOC was a woman last time I checked
1
"A Warren candidacy would not force centrist Democrats to make their peace with socialism nor ask young socialists to jettison their dreams of egalitarian economic transformation."
What are you saying?
You are expecting Warren to cave to status quo incrementalism, with a bit of economic transformation on the side...
The time for Real Change is Now.
If the status quo, warmongering, Wall Street supporting, Republican-lites try to shove their candidate down our throats, they may have to live with four more years of Trump.
Or, maybe they prefer Trump to Sanders... they may simply want to protect their status quo...
America desperately needs the integrity, bold ideas, vision and courage of Sanders.
Not only does America desperately need his domestic policies to revive the now dead American dream, but America and the world desperately need his foreign policy based on keeping people at the table, talking, disagreeing, but looking for common ground... instead of arming everyone to shoot and bomb each other.
A Future To Believe In!
President Bernie Sanders!
1
Finally we learn why the NY Times Op-Ed pages (especially Michelle Goldberg) have been unremitting in their opposition to Bernie Sanders: Goldberg admits that "I have a conflict of interest — my husband is consulting for Warren’s campaign."
Surprise, surprise! Who does Goldberg support? Warren!!! Can you imagine Goldberg's dudgeon if she were to discover that someone, for example AOC, had a financial conflict of interest underlying their support for Bernie?
The rest of the Op-Ed is simply ludicrous. We have to rely on Goldberg's word that "in much of the Democratic Party, there’s tremendous resentment of Sanders left over from 2016. Many believe he weakened Hillary Clinton by dragging out the primary..."
Au contraire, madame Warren supporter! The evidence shows that it was Hillary, aided and abetted by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC, who weakened Bernie by suppressing his campaign and favoring Hillary. In fact, polls showed that Hillary could NOT beat Trump but Bernie could, and there was lots of pressure on Hillary to drop out.
I'm sure you would agree, Michelle, that revealing your conflict does not mitigate it. We'll remember this next time you critique others for their conflicts. Goldberg now shares the same boat with the Trump family, accused of pursuing their own interests because they have conflicts.
Nothing against Warren: I would vote for her. But, my first choice will be Bernie. And no one in my family works for him.
5
The USA is not NYC Michelle. People unfortunately vote more on feel and atmospherics more than they do on policies. Clinton could have been a good President but was rejected and similarly Warren would be endlessly trolled and turn off independents. Stop looking inwards and never mind the warring factions of the democratic party. They will vote for a dog with D stencilled on the side. It's the other votes we need to worry about to get the win.
1
Senior citizen 67
Woman
Abortion is a right of all women and the decision is hers to make with a healthcare team and the sperm donor.
Caveat: after the first trimester remember you are aborting a fetus fully formed as a human and growing to become a full fledged person at birth if they are lucky. Chances of conception of a person 1 in 600000.
Healthcare: is a right. Children and Senior citizens should receive free health care till the grave. Guess that means all of us huh?!
Caveat: insurance companies own healthcare and want it to be a privilege.
Doctors make enough money not to care if part of the corporate system.
Wall St. : keep your wealth but give us housing and food and healthcare and education. There should be no homeless and no mental patients roaming our communities unattended. We need new mental health institutions. Or convert all the useless prisons filled with the poor and addicted and violent. Then pull out the prisoners with brains and rehabilitate them.
So which candidate has promises for that list. None. It’s all smoke and mirrors.
Voters know this and are just attending the free parties with music and media and candidates begging to be leaders.
we have a dictator.
We have no law intact
We have no congress for voters.
We have a machine that produces jobs in the beltway.
We watch tv all day if retired.
We work all day if middle aged
We think we can change the world if we just graduated or moved thru a major event like a new marriage or a new baby
1
As a Sanders supporter who formerly had her as a strong second choice, I and everyone I know feel nothing but absolute disgust for her actions over the last 36 hours. Unity argument is dead as of today.
4
Not the unity candidate at all. Far, far from it.
2
The thing that I fear is that even Democrats like Elizabeth Warren are caught up in this fealty to the claim that Suliemani was responsible for killing American soldiers. Trying to keep her self viable by going along with the neo con story line. Sanders is superior on that front.
1
I couldn't disagree more. Warren may be less divisive than Sanders, but that doesn't mean that she isn't divisive among all voters. In fact, the polls continue to show that her campaign is lagging Biden, Sanders and is close to slipping behind Buttigieg.
It started with her unwillingness to answer direct questions on middle class tax increases to pay for M4A, gained steam when her plan was shown to be based on very suspect math that no economist outside of her campaign could replicate, and then snowballed when she backed off her promise to implement M4A immediately if she won.
Then she went and totally fumbled the whole Mayor Pete "wine caves" issue and was cowed when confronted with the fact at she accepted corporate donations to bankroll her Senate campaign, then transferring those funds to her Presidential coffers.
Perhaps none of this would matter all that much if she were really popular among Democrats, but she isn't. FiveThiryEight only gives her a 12% chance of winning 1/2 of the delegates needed to win the primary, whereas Biden is at 40% and Sanders is at 22%.
Finally, comes the much maligned but still important issues of "likability" and "electability". Folks can crow about these concepts at their own peril, but voters don't elect campaigns, they elect Leaders and here Warren lags her peers. She's running NET NEGATIVE on favorability - meaning more people dislike her than like her. That's not going to cut it come November.
3
If you believe that a rising tide should lift ALL boats, then Warren is your candidate.
If all you care about is yourself, protecting your interests and your financial well-being, then you have an assortment of Democratic candidates to choose from and maybe one of them suits your needs and wants better.
In my lifetime, this country has moved further and further to the right - economically and socially. There has been an extraordinary rise in income and wealth inequality. The economy has dramatically changed which has resulted in a shrinking of the middle class and an increase in the number of people working for wages that are barely life-sustaining. More people today are struggling to have basic necessities, including healthcare.
I think it is clear that whatever the Republicans and Democrats have been doing over the past 40+ years, it has not been enough to overcome a downward spiral in economic wellbeing for most Americans. Why and how can this be happening in the wealthiest country the world?
Warren gives hope to those who have been left behind and her vision is not egocentric but is open to working with the best people to find the best ideas to achieve a healthier and happier America for everyone. Michelle is right as usual - Warren is the Democrats Unity Candidate and best hope for bringing people together!!
I truly believe if she is the next President of the United States, we will go from the worst president to the best president in history.
2
Oh Michelle! Unity candidate? Half my Democratic friends will “hold their noses” and vote for Trump if Warren is nominated. And all my independent and undecided Republican friends will too. You can lobby for her, but please don’t confuse that with Warren being a unity candidate.
5
Attributing Clinton's 2016 loss to Sanders' primary challenge is an epic stretch of political history.
Hillary chose to run a general election built around lackluster, stay-the-course strategy, with the subtext that Trump would be worse.
It was the perfect formula for a low-enthusiasm contest that failed to recognize there was widespread discontent (across the political spectrum--she failed to put forward any significant policy proposals that would animate enthusiasm in the financially challenged segment of the Democratic base.
The truth is that Trump and Clinton were the two LEAST popular, major-party Presidential candidates in modern history.
Clinton's feat was losing to the candidate who was even less popular than she was.
"I’ve hesitated to write too much about the Democratic primary because I have a conflict of interest — my husband is consulting for Warren’s campaign. " And my guess would be that whoever's husband is consulting for the Biden campaign thinks that Biden will be the great uniter. And whoever's husband is consulting for the Klobuchar campaign thinks that Klobuchar would be the great uniter. It is reasonable to speculate that any of the candidates could energize the base and bring in those on the fringes. But, it is a little more convincing when a speculator doesn't have such a (admittedly) significant conflict of interest.
4
People need to remember Hillary Clinton. She had very high "negative" ratings and scored very low on "likability" throughout the Primary and never recovered in the General Election. Warren is the same. According to FiveThirtyEight (Dec 13) only 21% of voters view Warren very favorably, whereas 34% view here very unfavorably. That's a -13% difference and it shows that she's actually a very weak candidate to run against Trump.
3
One what planet is Warren the "unity" candidate. Trump has demonstrated the ability to draw from the middle. He will never draw from the far left. You don't protect your flank by doubling down on part of the party that will vote for a Dem not matter what. It is only in the distorted world of the far left that this argument holds any sway. I know have 1/2 a dozen hard core "traditional" Democrats who have told me that they will Never vote for Trump .... unless Warren is the chosen. They will never admit this outside of their close friends but like many who support Trump, when confronted with pocket book issues vs a far left true believer the voting booth is a private affair.
3
Commentators on here can't seem to decide whether Warren is a "corporatist" or a "socialist." They'll say whatever comes to mind to undermine her candidacy.
She believes in capitalism, but also that capitalism needs a "cop" so that wealth accumulation doesn't stay out of control and deregulation doesn't wreck the planet and the humans who inhabit it. What does that make her? A "trustbuster"? A "moderate capitalist"?
Why do people thinks she's some kind of extremist?
4
There’s tremendous resentment in the Bernie camp too. If Bernie hadn't contested the primary there wouldn't have been a primary. Choosing between Clinton and Clinton isn't a choice. Your only choice is Clinton.
Moreover, the DNC and established Democratic leaders actively discouraged competition. Their own efforts to run Clinton uncontested is what weakened Clinton, not Sanders. The hacked DNC emails wouldn't have produced a scandal if there wasn't something scandalous in the emails.
We're seeing this play out with Sanders now. He said he didn't expect a woman could win an election against Trump. That's not scandalous. That's true. The odds are long.
However, I could say a similar thing about Sanders. Trump is absolutely going to plaster him with antisemitism. He did the same thing to Clinton and she isn't even Jewish. It's a hard truth but the statement is true just the same. It's called realpolitik. Aside from a few business moguls, Trump doesn't need to worry about losing the Jewish vote. He only needs to avoid alienating female voters. Hint: Bigotry is a turnoff.
However, the true strength behind Sanders supercedes many of his weakness. His true strength is a definitive vision for America. The sausage grinder will chew that vision up. However, at least the idea exists. Everyone else is asking,"What would you like me to do?" Sanders is saying, "This is what we should do." In the age of Trump, this leadership is something we desperately need.
2
Eugene McCarthy was a unity candidate and an anti Vietnam war candidate and he got his lunch eaten in 1968.Warren blew it with her medicare for all and we need to come to grips with that. She touted for months she had a plan when she really had a plan that is unworkable and not affordable. It is not about herding the cats of party it should be about beating Trump.Making the party as a whole happy at the expense of the electoral college is ludicrous. What candidate can win in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania is the box that need to checked.The autoworkers in Michigan are going to be happy you taking their hard fought healthcare and replacing with medicare for all? Is this the hill we Dems want to die on or do we want to be Trump?How is half of gang of four endorsing Bernie going to help in the purple states?
1
I’ve been a big Warren fan for a awhile (had high hopes she’d run in 2016) but the events of the past few days have convinced me she has terrible political instincts. Would certainly support her if she were the nominee but whoever’s running her campaign should be sacked.
2
She suffers from the same disease that brought down Rubio. She answers every question with rote, memorized talking points that deflect the substance of the question. This is especially bad for a candidate with authenticity issues. She’s toast.
1
Elizabeth Warren has been my choice since I made the first of many small contributions to her campaign as I have never done before.
Her ability to identify areas in which public policy is needed if the USA is to become a 21st Century nation and then present a plan for each such policy places her far above all others.
The USA is not even close to being a 21st Century nation, as I note often in comments on American failure in these four critical areas: Health care for all, renewable energy, transportation, and its 18th Century system for classifying us Americans, a system the "fatal invention" of racists.
As concerns private health insurance in a Universal Health Care system, Sweden has that and this is right now the subject of intense debate. As concerns transportation, I had a comment at Leonhardt yesterday at which 18 people filed replies - never happened before - replies that might help her understand how 18 Americans see or do not see the need for a plan, even there. The final one of the 18 was exceptionally American - "There is no need for public transportation".
Thanks Michelle Goldberg.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
3
Bernie Sanders offers the best chance of not only uniting the party but of winning the election. There is no other candidate who has the same level of passionate and committed supporters as Sanders who will go out to vote - except for trump. So the choice is clear: a progressive populist who can win the election and put our country back on the "right" track or our current deranged circus act also know as trump.
3
Passionate support, indeed. Bernie even was Putin's second choice. That alone should give anyone's pause.
Not after her two attempts to manufacture umbrage with Bernie, she's not.
First she tried to claim that a call script, regardless of whom was actually ever responsible, and which was based entirely on factual evidence, was Bernie "trashing" her...
And then this thing about Bernie saying a wouldn't couldn't win the race today... Which the Washington Post has already cast doubt on from people who were there (saying Warren broached the subject and Sanders responded that whomever the nominee was, Trump would resort to "Nefarious Tactics."
I mean come on! Play victim much? It's such a poor look for any candidate running for president, and less for the one who is dropping like a stone as voters figure out that she really is a me-first politician after all, who will say (and now apparently do) anything to get elected.
And where's the strategy here? This does nothing but make her look weak and uninsightful. It also won't help, but only hurt Bernie. So yeah, she just poison pilled the progressives...so we could have Joe Biden?
One thing is for sure, she cares a lot more about herself than she does in the future of the progressive movement in this country...
3
This “middle-aged woman who [is] part of the resistance” is a one-issue voter this time around. My issue is defeating Trump. He is a cancer on our country. I will vote for Warren if she’s the nominee, but she’s not my choice because I don’t believe she can beat Trump. Same goes for Sanders. Like it or not, Warren and Sanders are too far left to bring in moderate Republican voters who are afraid of what their policies will do to their retirement savings, their taxes, and the quality of their healthcare. I don’t think Warren, Sanders (who is and Independent, not a Democrat) or any other Democrat, can win without having broader appeal beyond the left wing of the party. And God help us all if Trump is re-elected.
1
I am 83. Female. Political junkie. Educated. Many years a Dem, now a registered Ind.
Warren is a terrible, horrible representative of where we want to go, those of us who want to be uniters, not dividers. And want to get rid of DJT.
She proposes and advocates for unrealistic solutions to our problems, a revolution that is unrealistic in this age of complete exhaustion and depression and extreme partisanship.
Not one, either Warren or Sanders, has detailed how the employees of those orgs to be reformed or killed are going to be dispatched professionally. There are so very many details to all of these unrealistic ideas that have yet to be detailed, that I cry for those taken in.
Yes, we need reform in absolutely every aspect of our democracy, but this radical way is not the way to do it.
We need a man/woman who is practical and can provide unity and healing for at least the next 4 years. Then, and only then, can we move forward on our repairs to our broken systems.
We need enlightened, wise, practical men and women to consider, be thoughtful, to listen and compromise.
So, having negated all the top four or five, do I have a candidate about whom I'm excited? You bet. Michael Bennet, Senior Senator from Colorado. Take a look, everyone, at his website. He can bring us home to the place where too many years ago we fell off the cliff.
2
I don't think so..... After people in her campaign came out to say Sanders doesn't think a woman can win the presidency she has turn me against her. That absolutely smacks of desperation. There was no implication of bias, him saying a woman was incapable, rather she couldn't win. She already had to business class against her, no the social democrats and a large slice of progressives are going to turn against her. She is getting close to being done and it will be at her own devices and no one else.
1
Should she be nominated president Trump will strip her bark. Joe Biden is the only candidate that has a remote chance of winning a general election, and I really don't think he can pull it off. The economy is strong and that is what most people care about most. The president's base is united and will show up at the polls, not so much the democrats.
1
I proudly gave Ms Warren $50 way back when she first came out as a candidate, which ain't chicken feed for an old retired person.
Qualifications, intelligence, sincerity - she's got all of those,
but also simply because of her inescapable gender.
We need a woman in the White House. It's time.
2
Can you please tell your husband to tell Elizabeth to make better commercials? These anti-corruption commercials are vague and ring hollow. The focus needs to be on working class.
Goldberg makes the best point of her whole piece in her 5th paragraph, where she states she has a conflict of interest and therefore has believed she shouldn’t write much about the primary.
She’s right.
And she leaves this assertion hanging, never arguing otherwise throughout the article. If only she had followed the wise guidance that she herself professes to believe in — and not written much about this — she could have avoided making the absurd she point that she went on to make.
The candidate best suited to unify the Democratic Party is the one who just criticized her friend and ally directly, and revealed discussions that transpired in a private meeting between the two? Where is the logic, Ms. Goldberg? This makes no sense.
Neither Sanders nor his volunteers deserve the slightest criticism for stating eminently reasonable opinions about electability. It is just as widely known that (a) Warren’s candidacy so far has struggled to attract working-class supporters and that, also, her run for the presidency will face headwinds of sexism. Neither of these widely perceived facts constitutes criticism of Warren. But she has now dished out direct, hostile criticism at Sanders in alleging that “he told his supporters to trash” her and so on.
That Goldberg would violate her principle of staying out of all this due to a conflict of interest, at this time, on this day, to describe Warren as the most unifying candidate, is just ridiculous.
3
From the perspective of this lifelong Democrat, the only thing Warren would unite would be independents and Republicans in a lopsided campaign where she looses in a crushing McGovernesque like fashion.
2
Just because she admits she has a conflict of interest doesn't mean we should take her word that her conflict of interest isn't shaping her view. OK, she's not going down the Conway rabbit hole but the real unity candidate is Klobuchar. Warren scares people and will be labeled a socialist and worse. She also has a stubborn streak that suggests she knows what is best for everyone. Labeling a far left/progressive candidate a unity candidate is an oxymoron.
1
@Marty. Yes, Klobuchar is the unity candidate. She's a moderate women from the Midwest. I don't know if she can win the primary, but she could certainly win the general election.
If Warren is nominated, by Election Day, the GOP will have the country believing you can't vote without showing a Harvard Degree and ordering a double latte. Sanders is no alternative. By November 3, he'll be painted as Joe Stalin running for president. This country has been told, for 100 years, that socialism and communism are the same thing. We will simply not elect a far left socialist, declared or de facto, full stop, mic drop.
1
In the general election in November, I will — as the Twitter hashtag exhorts us — #VoteBlueNoMatterWho.
Of course I have my own preferences and concerns regarding the candidates. Bernie is too far left, Biden too old, what happened to Kamala, and so forth.
But this election is too important for petty grievances. Trump, Putin, the oligarchs who fund them and the bigots who cheer them MUST be defeated.
An emboldened, triumphant, vengeful and corrupt narcissist with a second term might well represent an extinction-level event for democracy and the rule of law. Democrats, Independents and the remaining principled Republicans need to unite this fall for the sake of our republic.
3
I agree. She's my choice.
But while Democrats appear to be divided, it's because we are so anxious to find a candidate who can beat Trump. Once we have a candidate we'll back them 100%. Very, very few Democrats are going to go third party or sit this election out. I'll vote for Biden's dog if he's the nominee. And help pay for his kibble.
4
Next time I want to attack a group of people, I'm going to call them "highly educated, affluent people who are going to show up and vote."
Oh, snap! How could anyone come back from that?
I suppose if you're a Republican, "vote Democrat no matter what" might be considered an attack, I dunno. Certainly not something a Democratic candidate would consider offensive.
"...bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party." Hmm. An attack? The "never-Berner" moderates think that all is needed is to win over centrist independents--I don't know how many she wins over, but it's pretty certain she has a few--it's also true that they are not a new base. So the attack is what again?
When you call it "pretty mild," that's like calling a no-hitter a "low-scoring game." There was no attack to characterize, neither mild nor severe. For the Warren campaign to consider that anodyne statement an "attack" is ridiculous, thin-skinned and paranoid.
Even if Sen. Sanders didn't say it it has truth to it.
Democrats return to eating their own with this shot by Sen, Warren but it is futile.
As we experience our first dictator President who adheres to hostile nuclear armed dictators we must remember the last Presidential nominee for President was a woman.
Interestingly Seen. Sanders has an even less of a chance as he isn't even a democratic but a socialist whom Trump covets as an ideal opponent.
One of them as a VP Candidate with Biden makes more sense. A lot more sense.
"...there’s tremendous resentment of Sanders left over from 2016. Many believe he weakened Hillary Clinton by dragging out the primary — at one point even threatening a contested convention — and then only halfheartedly rallying his fans behind her when it was over."
What nonsense! This just continues the stealth attacks on Sanders by the MSM and the NYT. Hilary Clinton lost because she ran a poor campaign, and gave the impression that she was above the "common folk", and many of those folk went and voted for Trump rather than her. And I think it's dishonest of the NYT to foment divisiveness between two candidates that they would rather not see get the nomination.
As for Liz being the "unity candidate", while she may be able to attract a lot of support across the spectrum - now that Bernie made former "radical" ideas like MFA and taxing the rich and GND almost mainstream-polls show her NOT drawing in the voters that switched from Obama to Trump. Moreover she doesn't seem to inspire the passion that Sanders (or Yang or Buttigieg) seem to inspire. This is the aspect of her that Sanders campaign was highlighting, and I don't think it's off base.
Personally I like Warren a lot, second only to Bernie, and wouldn't be unhappy if she got the nomination. But Trump inspires passion-good and bad-and I believe that's what is needed to beat him. My preference would be that the ticket be Sanders/Warren. I hope that they can avoid attacking one another so that one of them prevails.
1
My thought is Sanders has as much contempt as Trump does for very smart savvy women they both go into their corners and pout until you can cajole them back out when they don’t get their way.
This article is preposterous. Warren can't get the support of the working class in her own state. She could only unify various subgroups of liberal intellectuals. This legitimate criticism remains unanswered. She'd be a great cabinet pick, imo.
1
I think Donald Trump is the Democrats' unity candidate.
No matter which Democrat gets the nomination, it is Donald Trump who unites all Democrats and most Americans to restore sanity, decency and honor to the presidency.
Vote for ADULTS in 2020!
1
It is a sign of the toxicity of the President, and the destructive havoc of 40 years of Republican ascendency, that despite three mad cap years of decline under Trump the Dems have so many fractions and factions.
I really liked Warren about 5 years ago. But as a candidate I am not at all a fan. She has zero ability to convey how....or really knows what it takes to pass into law any of her plans. She just keeps spewing policies with no actual plan to make it happen. People get caught up in what she promises, but that’s all she is.
She’s actually the opposite of the title of your column, and is more divisive than unifying. When she’s at the podium for the debates with the other candidates she never looks at anyone, or takes in the words of anyone else, or smiles. And don’t go there on the double standard sexist thing. She’s as angry and redundant as Bernie.
She’s a blamer, not a unifier. She’d be like that as a President too, not really listening, just blaming. Go on the road Michelle to Ohio and listen to people outside your bubble, mainstream Democrats don’t like her or Bernie.
2
Unifying the Democratic Party is not the goal. If you don’t like the ultimate candidate, what are your choices? None. She can’t win. She is professorial, bookish and not leader material. Cabinet member? Sure. Presidential? No. Unifying? Who cares if she can’t win
She's smart, savvy, friendly, not scary-angry like Bernie and she's a real Democrat.
2
Warren and her campaign took a vert unfair shot at Sanders. She has lost her chance with me.
Unity candidate no more.
Warren was my strong second choice after Sanders. But her disingenuous attacks this weekend on his campaign's mild electability talking points—when Julian Castro is out making speeches touting the Warren's own electability claims and Sanders' weakness on that score—smacked of hypocrisy and a cheap shot. But the smear about Sanders purportedly saying a woman couldn't win in 2020 smells of desperation and gutter politics.
Warren is off my list.
1
Thanks to Michelle for articulating my perceptions on Warren's candidacy pretty accurately.
As a member of the middle class and as a Warren volunteer, I found it insulting that the Sanders' campaign would insinuate elitism and that I would just vote for a Democrat no matter what. To ignore or diminish the excitement and support of another female candidate is repugnant and does smell of his halfhearted 'endorsement' of Clinton in 2016.
I understand he wants to win a primary and for that, he has to draw differences with other candidates. Maybe if he had more detailed policy proposals and got them on the record in interviews, he could draw differences with Warren on a substantive level. So far, he has not articulated how he would attempt to execute his platform and maybe now that he can be seen as a 'frontrunner', the media will finally hold him to account for that.
2
Obviously voting is key regardless of whom is the candidate. Any Democrat, Independent, one issue voters, or fence-sitters who stay home or votes for a third party candidate are effectively voting for Trump. The Democratic agenda will have policy outlines that can be influenced further after taking the White House.
MG, Warren is NOT the climate change voters' choice. She does NOT support putting a price on carbon which is, by far, the most effective greenhouse gas reducing policy available. We need to tax carbon and there are proposals in Congress that would rebate the money to American families. We have to punish fossil fuels, not just subsidize renewables as in the Green New Deal. I say this as a Ph.D. economist who has spent her life in the field of environmental economics. Of the Dems, only Bloomberg and Buttigieg support a carbon price (tax) thus I will be voting for one of them.
3
I view these reports from Politico and other media organizations as a way to throw a knife into the Iowa caucuses and beyond. What better way to upend the otherwise civilized friendship that has existed between Sanders and Warren thru these debates. While I would pick Warren as my top choice, I would not lose a second if Sanders was the nominee. For transparency sake, I would also be fine with my cat, who is far more intelligent than the current occupant. I hope that all the democratic candidates wisely avoid this and future traps to distract them, the media and the voters, keeping their eyes on the prize no matter what rubble is thrown at any of them by the trump organization’s/Republican party’s long tentacles and obscene amounts of money and dirty tricks. Rock on, Michelle.
3
And here's something you haven't mentioned: she would make an outstanding president. Elizabeth Warren cares 100% about the American people, first and foremost, and doing right by them. And she has the brains and experience to get the job done.
If she has the ability to bring the Democrats together to win the nomination and the presidency, just imagine how she might have the ability to bring the American people together as POTUS. Now that's a wonderful dream.
5
All the Democratic candidates have glaring weaknesses, every one of them will have a very difficult task in beating Trump.
President Sanders however has the greatest potential to be the 'good anti-Trump' if he did win - a rabble-rousing populist, but without all the lies and with benign policy preferences. The Democratic party is only slightly less rotten than the Republican party, so Sanders rallying the masses to force change against both Democratic and Republican entrenched interests is the only way actual change could potentially happen.
It's still far from a sure thing; most likely there just is no hope at all to beat the plutocracy. But Warren would almost surely fail to achieve meaningful change, and the others won't even try.
Best hope for unifying party? Perhaps. But amongst the worst for unifying the country, which to my mind, is much more important...
This article is wishful thinking, and the arguments don't hold water. Did Michelle not see the NYT polls showing Warren doing much worse against Trump than Biden and Sanders? Did she not read the accurate NYT piece about Warren supporters who worry that others don't support Warren? The fact is that Warren does really poorly with less educated or affluent white voters, as well as wealthy white men, and African Americans. Bernie does bring more people in to the party, just like her did in Vermont, because he speaks to people who have been forgotten, just as he described in his book. And if there is a fear in certain segments of the democratic electorate to vote for women, don't blame Bernie for that.
3
Unlike Trump, who fights only for himself, President Elizabeth Warren will fight for all economically, environmentally, and healthcare beleaguered Americans, whether they are part of Trump’s base or not. A president who cares about the good of ALL Americans- wouldn’t that be a change!
3
Nope, it is Bloomberg. You nominate Mrs. Warren, and we lose in a landslide. The country is not the coast.
2
At this point in our nation’s history the only valid consideration is to which party the voter assents being hostage. With that sad realization, I have to say Bloomberg is the best shot. His version of noblesse oblige is more palatable than the alternative offered by our present captors - Serf from Stockholm
This idea has been discredited by Warren herself. I will not vote for her and feel she is another stealth corporatist working to lure progressives with good sounding rhetoric that she will not follow through on.
I agree 100%. But I am an educated voter, so I guess I don't count in this discussion. I will add that of the 3, Warren is clearly in the best physical and mental shape. She is physically spry, mentally quick, and the most logical candidate I have ever head. If elected, she has the energy to pick the right team and figure things out.
Biden and Sanders are too old. I'll vote for any Democrat, but I don't understand why we want to elect someone pushing 80. The only reason Warren is not considered as strong a contender must be because of gender, which is ridiculous at this point in history. Look at all the major female leaders throughout the world. Why not in the USA? Women now top men in colleges and in the work force. She's a gem and the Democratic Party is losing a golden opportunity if they fail to nominate her.
2
Warren was a Republican until age 42. She will be Obama 2.0
Talk a great game then govern as a Republican.
3
@gene
Her creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the flack she received from the Obama administration undermines your argument.
1
college loan forgiveness.
free college tuition.
repairations.
some kind of child care credit.
medicare for all.
if she does win, their are going to be a lot of disappointment
Bernie isn't even a Democrat, he's an independent! As much as I like his personal style, he will never defeat Trump and he's a divisive figure. He should never have entered the race.
2
"Many believe he weakened Hillary Clinton by dragging out the primary — at one point even threatening a contested convention — and then only halfheartedly rallying his fans behind her when it was over. " from the text of this piece ................halfheartedly? The truth is Bernie campaigned for Hillary more than any other person. And before the 2016 convention, Bernie polled better against Trump than Hillary. If the media and the DNC had treated Sanders fairly, there would now be no President Trump.
No "candidate" will beat Trump - only a true grassroots movement (like Bernie's) will do that. And this is a VERY odd time to promote Warren as unifier since she has not only been bleeding support for a month, but her campaign has just instigated a major divisive sleaze attack on Bernie, who happens right now to be leading.
I love many of MG's pieces but she had NO business writing this since her husband is a Warren advisor. (Admitting your conflict of interest doesn't neutralize it.)
Bad journalism - including by the NYT - helped create Trump, and if journalists don't find their spine and their ethics, they will help re-elect him.
2
Elizabeth Warren has a screechy voice. She knows what's best for you. She has the body language of Beto, sans table hopping. Does she poll better with men than Hillary did? If not...
Now, for the bad stuff.
"Her nomination would offer the best hope of bringing together the party’s warring factions."
That's true for every candidate. As told by every candidate.
"...she’s “bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.”
If she can't flip a lot of Trump voters in no-man's-land...
"...there’s tremendous resentment of Sanders left over from 2016."
Is there any doubt that feeling is mutual and possibly more intense in the Sanders camp?
"...as well as the young people Democrats need to turn out en masse."
I'm guessing there is an app, that will bring young voters to the polls. While I suspect there is above average interest and intensity among college students, the average high school student would find Trump's message more understandable.
"...a registered Democrat who has worked within the party — including in the Obama administration..."
She should check with Biden on how well that line plays.
1
I like Warren but African-American women prefer Biden. Since they could well be the deciding factor in who beats Trump, it's time to make some hard choices in winnowing out the also-rans.
1
Michelle says that she has "hesitated to write too much about the Democratic primary because I have a conflict of interest — my husband is consulting for Warren’s campaign." She should stick with her instincts of worrying about an appearance of a conflict of interest, because she provides very little substance to her assertion that Warren is the unity candidate and this column looks like it was written by someone in the Warren campaign for all the logic it has
Warren the unity candidate is the same woman attacking Sanders, Biden, and Mayor Pete? And who doesn't have a message that resonates with non progressives? Having passionate followers doesn't mean non followers will unite behind her, and considering her standings in the polls there seems to be very little objective evidence to support Michelle's assertion
1
More wishful thinking by progressives. Nobody I know will vote for a Socialist which is what she is. I am not paying other people's student loans who took them on as adults knowing full well what they were getting into. I cannot support an invasive government that will try to control every aspect of our lives. I do not believe in manipulating our currency which is against international conventions and she advocates that. She has been dishonest about her heritage to gain advantage and she complains about the wealthy when she has over $12 million in assets including a $3 million house in Cambridge and a $1 million condo in DC. Maybe she should give $10 million to people and need to show she is a person of the people. Trump will eat her lunch in an election. We need an electable candidate and no matter how much progressives delude themselves, neither she or Bernie are.
I’d like to see a unity candidate too. One who can unify our shared struggle as working people under capitalism. Bernie is that candidate.
And no, unlike Warren, I’m not a “capitalist to my bones”. With less than ten years to address the climate crisis, I can’t “believe in markets” anymore.
1
An endorsement from a columnist at a newspaper that reported that Trump's chances of winning the night before the election were only 15% in not ... well... very reassuring.
I think I will do like George Costanza and do just the opposite of what seems like the best thing to do. Or in this case, vote for the opposite of whoever Michelle is endorsing.
3
Agree 100%. After extensive research of each candidate, I've decided to vote for her. She's brilliant, experienced, compassionate, patient and determined.
My dream ticket would be Warren/Abrams.
5
My favorite anecdote about Warren was when she was going after the billionaires, CEOS specifically and one replied "I worked hard for this" and Warren said "And the rest of us haven't?" Says it all. Tax the top 1 percent!
8
@Elizabeth @Elizabeth She is the best candidate for furthering this very important national malady. She is fiery about it, and it can be the vibranium that can energize the populace to vote, if they would only take a moment to think about it. It can be THE unifying topic. Tax avoidance needs to become one of the "it" issues of the campaign to beat one the worst offenders of all!
1
Actually, I'M the unity candidate.
Medicare for All, people. It's happening—accept it.
3
There is no mention of African American voters. That makes the argument less than convincing for me. I like Warren's policies, but right now it looks like Biden has the better chance of winning.
2
She would be the unity candidate, alright.
She would unite upper-middle class white progressives to vote for her. And she would unite everyone else in the country to vote against her.
My Democratic African American in-laws see her as a giant hypocrite for manipulating well-intended advantages for minorities to her own benefit.
My neighbor who had a Barack Obama sign in his yard for what seemed like eight straight years has worked for two decades to put three kids through college and has zero interest in being taxed to pay off the education debt of everyone else.
My wife who literally wept when Donald Trump was elected works in the health care industry, and sees her Medicare-For-All plan as a wasteful fantasy. She plans to sit out the election if Warren is nominated.
My Wharton-educated, progressive financial adviser who has never voted for a Republican in his life told me emphatically that she would wreck the economy, and that he'd vote for Trump if she were the nominee.
My working class extended family through Ohio and Pennsylvania see her as a phony New England elitist academic. And yes, fair or not, the 'Pocahontas' label has firmly stuck with people who didn't get any extra advantages themselves and understand viscerally what she was doing in claiming American Indian status.
Elizabeth Warren is a fast track to Donald Trump for four more years. Only people in the NY-DC-LA bubble don't get that.
5
Great commentary
1
My daughter just had knee surgery in Japan. She tore her meniscus the 1st week in Dec. '19. She had surgery on Dec. 27, 19. She will be in the hospital a total of 4 weeks. They are keeping her in the hospital through the first part of her physical therapy. No family member has to take off work to take care of her, driving her back and forth to appointments. She is right there already. Great care for $250.00 out of pocket! She is very happy with her care. Government run insurance. Hmmmmmm...it could work here.
4
The Democrats are in a pickle. While there is plenty to disqualify Trump, the economy is doing well for people who vote - that is, the middle and upper middle class and the rich. The lower middle and poor dramatically outnumber these people - but many don't vote. The Dems are appealing to this big number of people but I fear it is a losing strategy. At the end of the day, they won't come out and vote. They have a million legitimate excuses - no child care, can't take a day off of work, etc. - the bottom line, they don't vote. Dems need a candidate who will broadly appeal to the middle class. We know the rich will go for Trump because he cut their taxes. We need the middle class. I fully believe Warren is that person. Everyone can relate to her story and she has lots of energy when she talks. The crowds tell the story. She excites people. Bernie does, too, but I think Warren excites people more.
1
Maybe she can unite Democrats, but what about November? Warren long ago lost that race when she stood by her convictions and insisted on supporting medicare for all, totally abolishing private medical insurance. Of course that's the rational way of reforming American health care, but it's a position that would cost any Democrat the White House as long as the Electoral College guarantees that the decisive votes for President in 2020 will be cast in Great Lakes states. In the Rust Belt tens of thousands of autoworkers and union retirees enjoy generous health insurance benefits that they've fought for and won in painful strikes over the years and they vote in large numbers. Republicans will saturate those states with clips of Warren threatening to take away their health insurance, Trump again will narrowly win those states, and only God knows if this country can survive his second term without catastrophic results. Goldberg is correct about one thing: this is indeed an 'existential' election.
1
The mainstream media and the corporatocracy will do anything to keep Bernie out. This year, with extinction facing our species, their "anything" may finally not be enough.
4
Warren needs to simply explain that Medicare for ALL WHO WANT IT will become Medicare for all when those who oppose it see that their friends and family members who opted in have better coverage than they do.
1
Warren’s “I have a plan” message appeals to news junkies who care about sounding like the smartest person in the room. This strategy alienates working class voters, whose goals are simpler and more authentic: higher wages, affordable housing, clean air and water...
Furthermore, the details of wonky plans mean nothing on the campaign trail. Republicans have proven that they will not sign on to a well thought out plan, no matter how much we try to compromise. They will obstruct anything we try to do.
The real question now is how best to roll an increasingly recalcitrant Republican Party. The answer is mass mobilization centered on those who have the most to gain from progressive policies. This was true when FDR revolutionized our party, and it’s true today.
4
I really can't agree with you that Warren is the best nominee. In fact, although I will support any Democrat who wins the nomination, I consider both Warren and Sanders too far to the left to truly unify the party. I wish that Sanders had not tried to run again: he did truly tank Hillary Clinton's chances in 2016, especially by encouraging his impractical and impolite supporters to cling to him after Hillary won the nomination outright and fairly, but he's also too old and too compromised in health. And Warren is frankly almost as impractical as Sanders is; her plans can't work, and yet she continues to peddle fantasies. What I hope is that a moderate candidate wins the nomination, and that all of Warren's and Sander's supporters back the candidate with genuine energy so that we can go back to professional, ethical government that represents the majority of citizens.
3
Warren was indeed bringing people together when she surged in the polls last summer. Then is seemed the establishment freaked out about Medicare for All and dragged her through the mud.
Guess what? Bernie Sanders is still strong in the polls and he is more adamant about Medicare for All. The story about Warren being unelectable is not true.
3
I think the goal of the Democratic nominee should be to unify the party as well as the country. But unifying the party may not be entirely possible, so unifying the country may be the next best strategy. Unfortunately, Warren is not that candidate. The far left (some want to deny there is a far left) want to completely transform the Democratic party They will not accept Warren because they have no interest in winning the election if a traditional Democrat is the nominee. She also has no chance of unifying the country. She has done a poor job of differentiating her ideology from Sanders, who is perceived as a socialist by the majority, even in his owm party. Branding is everything. The voting public pays little attention to policy details, so "I've got a plan for that" isn't really a winning message.
1
Warren is the only candidate with the grace and style to bring unity and bury the hatchets among the Demos after the front runner is elected.
Aside from her other redeeming qualities her forgive and forget the animosity and join forces with the more agreeable aspects of those running against her will save and conserve the party and them a winner in Nov. across the board. She is the ticket going forward.
She listens well and compromises with finesse. Sanders' people will get on board; let's hope.
1
“Sander’s people”. So typical.
@justice Holmes
Well, it's Sanders' people or Trump's followers. Much too alike in rote.
And hubby would be so happy to move to DC! I usually agree with Mrs. Goldberg and love this column but today I'm really disappointed. I am a fan of both Bernie and Warren and have donated to both but I see Warren's side defying their unspoken truce now and it's very disturbing. Bernie did not cause HRC to lose in 2016 in any way and it is absurd to even suggest that. If anything, it was her friends in the DNC that conspired to ruin Bernie that caused people to see her as crooked and untrustworthy. I usually go away from this column in full agreement but today I leave even less a supporter of Warren band more committed than ever before to Bernie. This is perhaps the most wrong and shameful Goldberg column I have yet read. Very disappointing.
5
What does polling show about who has the greatest support among younger voters?
Bernie does by a large margin.
She attacks Biden, on a personal level, Buttigieg, and now launches what feels very much like a coordinated smear of Sanders -- and she's the "unity candidate?"
She has truly terrible political instincts and tries to play both sides against the middle. Badly. She would be, imo, a very weak GE candidate.
But in my cynical old age, I don't think TPTB care if they lose to Trump, as long as they avoid the calamity of the Dems winning with a Sanders.
Some truly unbelievable bad decisions this campaign has made. Mind-boggling. But she's a "team player." My problem is the team she has chosen.
18
When did EW attack Joe may I ask? If you are referring to EW plans for changing the 2005 bankruptcy law, is that not what’s expected of candidates, making a stand for the policies they support? You cannot possibly call this a personal attack.
But reasoned arguments on policies are fair game. Personal attacks on someone based on gender, age, race, religion or appearance are totally unacceptable.
By that reasoning, EW and Amy have been attacked far more by Joe and Buttigieg, using gender based stereotypes (“my way or the highway”, “angry Amy”) and I am not even mentioning the insults on Amy’s hair and EW’s high pitched voice.
Many people are fiercely anti Warren. I will crawl to vote for her if she is the nominee, but I think this essay cherry picks to present a divisive candidate as a uniter.
Policies are just slogans until a path for their enactment is presented. Warren falls short here. She offers policies that are DOA to Republicans & has shown her willingness to ridicule colleagues, Klobuchar, Bennet, Biden, for promoting policies on gun safety that have a chance of becoming law. I am put off by such Trumpian disdain & suggestion of others’ smallness in lines such as “what are you running for?” A crowd pleasing line won by ridiculing and demeaning others. I’ve had enough of that.
Warren has presented herself as a target for Republicans by suggesting big govt knows best & should take away your health insurance & replace it with something better, to be cobbled in a senate that includes Republicans. Republican money will have a field day trouncing her for taking money from working Americans to give to “elites” to pay for their college.
The 2018 election demonstrated more conservative candidates did well in swing districts. Indicates the Dems should nominate a moderate candidate.
I hope Dems can see a difference between a Biden or Klobuchar and Trump. Dems must not fail to vote against racism & Russian control of elections because their favorite is not the candidate. A separated child should be enough to inspire a Dem to vote.
BTW, both Putin and Trump have indicated who they most fear.
7
At my country club I get to meet a fair number of Republicans who voted for Trump but now have various degrees of "buyer's remorse." Biden or Bennett or Bloomberg would now elicit a vote for the Democrat. However, the common theme seems to be anyone but Sanders or Warren. "Socialism" is still a no no.
If Warren/Sanders is the nominee they will go back to pulling the lever for Trump.
5
When Republicans say “socialism is a no, no”. I just laugh. Socialism for corporations and billionaires is a YES, YES and more please. But try to strengthen programs for humans and end tax giveaways to billionaires and corporations that avoid taxes on a grand scale while abusing their workers and poisoning the environment and it’s why you dirty socialist. What horsefeathers!
1
Warren is indeed worthy of consideration, for the reasons given here and for other reasons as well. I think there are other candidates who might also have promise. For the reasons given here and for other reasons, Sanders is not among them. He has spent generations as an egotist, not trying to pass legislation or forge alliances or help allies get elected.
87
Too bad we don't have a Will Rogers on stage in front of the cameras and microphones today. His lament haunts us today.
"I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat."
Our Democratic Party only unifies in response to calamity -- Roosevelt sprang from the Great Depression and Obama from the Great Recession. The question today is whether the calamity of another four years of Trump is big enough to unify Democrats.
3
The goal is to defeat Trump and reduce the power of the a Republican Senate.
Warren will not achieve that. She will not draw from Republicans who see Trump as the enemy they know vs the enemy they don’t know. Warren is too polarizing to unify the party and country. Her ideas need to be achievable, worthy of debate and compromise. Warren does not see compromise and projects arrogance. I don’t need to be learned; I need a president who is willing to listen.
I believe if Warren is the nominee and wins the Republican Senate will prevail. We will have another four years of gridlock and the discord will widen. This country need someone voters from both sides can embrace.
Elizabeth Warren is not that person.
1
Senator Warren seems to be everything Donald Trump is not. She presents her progressive agenda with the appeal of a hip and caring grandmother. She reads her audio books with the kind of polish and compassion that makes President Trump and most of her male Democratic rivals seem unemotional and uncaring. She illustrates countless problems with compassionate stories but falls short on workable policy.
Warren panders her simplistic solutions with the polish of a snake oil salesman and the belief that the federal government must be in charge … of everything. From abortion to assisted suicide, student loans to wealth taxes for the rich, and from open borders to Medicare for all; Warren knows what is best and sees no downside or risk to her policies.
Keeping the good and avoiding every kind of evil is impossible when you lack the skills to know the unintended consequences of public policy details. Donald Trump, in spite of his many personality shortcomings, seems to do his homework and respect the limits of federal power. Warren has no chance in the general election but the contest would be fun.
1
@Eugene Patrick Devany Warren is pandering and has simplistic solutions? I think its called campaigning, and her solutions seem as close as one could get to being responsive to our nation's crises. I don't think Warren believes she has all the solutions: she's been in the Senate for a few years now, and she understands the legislative process. I ask that you reconsider your view on the Senator. She is, as you say, everything the President is not, and that is a great first start. (I am a regular citizen with no dog in this race.)
1
Warren is excellent in many ways, though relatively inexperienced.
Being a woman would be a plus as president, but probably not as a candidate, mainly because the last woman who ran as the Democratic nominee did so as part of an arrogant nepotistically-entitled campaign which has had the unfortunate effect of tarring (unfairly yet with some effect) subsequent females aiming at high office.
America suffers now because of the foolish mantra four years that people had to vote for a particular woman simply because she was a woman. Some voters resent that and some whom Warren might otherwise have attraced will vote elsewhere instead. Sad but true, and unfortunately probably especially applicable to swing voters in swing states.
Warren has added much of value to the presidential debates this season, and to national dialogues in general, would be valuable continuing in the Senate, and a good choice for a prominent cabinet position.
4
Senator Warren is the only candidate who understands how the current fracturing of our Constitutional republic came about, and how we can repair it, and simultaneously work within the economic rules of free markets, more like those when the Constitution was written, than the current hegemony of oligarchs. She also has the capacity to bring out the best in people; to turn goals into plans; to learn from experience - all needed skills to get things done. Senator Sanders, As powerful as his passion is, comes across as too authoritarian, too "dogmatic", making "socialist"seem even scarier to the plurality who believe that they have been prospering in a free market economy. The "centrists" would take us back to a "kinder, gentler" oligarchy. She is a 21st Century politician, who combines the strengths of Teddy Roosevelt the trust-buster, with FDR, who understood that a democracy survives, and thrives when government does not become the economy, but does prevent the wretched excesses of greed, a seductive illusion, human nature being what it is.
Add the storm of ecosystem collapse and climate change, her willingness to confront corruption in governance - an existential imperative, and she wins., or we lose bigtime.
1
My college age students are, as they say "All In On EEEEEEEE Warren!." My 90 yr old mother supports her. I would be cheering my heart out at her inauguration.
Keep The Faith Warren 2020
1
It's pretty simple, to me:
1) I will vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.
2) I will volunteer to canvas in the fall, as I did for President Obama in 2012 and, to my regret, did not in 2016 for Hillary Clinton.
Democrats can win this election. But all who can must do more than be willing to simply pull a lever (figuratively, in this age of sketchy digital voting). We must all, to the best of our abilities, give time, money and energy to ensure that people vote Democratic. We cannot afford to let apathy or Facebook/Russian-driven schisms keep people on the couch.
I know we live in an era when everything just sort of floats into our homes, from entertainment (Netflix) to products (Amazon). But when it comes to this election, sitting at home and waiting for someone else to deliver victory is going to lead to the re-election of the most manifestly unqualified, dangerous president this nation has ever seen.
8
Most of the comments against EW refer to Medicare for all as a divisive subject because it would be disruptive. This position is a defeatist attitude ensuring to a republican win in November.
Most Democrats, in fact most Americans, would like to see a rational, cost saving health care system. To reach this goal, the new system will have to reduce profits for health providers, pharmaceutical companies and eliminate the current system of private health insurance.
What Americans want is to be able to choose their doctor. Medicare, which already exists shows us how to reach that goal.
So, the health care industry has started to fight back arguing that it is about choice, confusing insurances with providers. When is the last time anyone truly chose their health insurance provider? Has it ever led any non millionaire to be able to choose any doctor they want. This is spin coming from an industry fighting for its survival.
So instead of recognizing the spin for what it is, some Democrats look at some polls and see that change is not going to come without a fight, and they give up fearing such change would be too disruptive.
No significant change will ever come without being disruptive. Change comes if people are ready to accept that there will be losers and they are going to be vocal. That is what politics is about. Refusing disruption is to insure a republican win in November in whatever form it will take, including a weak democratic administration.
7
I really hate that it's come down to this. I volunteered for Bernie in 2016 wholeheartedly and admire what he did to break up the lockstep DNC positions on so many issues and foremost, got the dialogue rolling about healthcare republicans are trying to quash.
While admiring and appreciating Bernie, that was then, this is now. Kavanaugh is on the bench. The only job I can get right now is as a customer service rep for a pharmacy that is owned by a pharmacy benefits manager owned by a major health insurance company.
This means not only is my employer setting the terms for my insurance, it is on the take for both premiums, my medications, taking the deductible right out of my pay before any coverage kicks in--and determining what healthcare it decides I can't have all to it's direct advantage and against me.
I love Bernie, but this kind of anti-trust raping of the American worker is something I trust to Warren who has spent a lifetime understanding corporations and sees the light on just how far they are willing to go to crush the individual.
On this one, Warren is the ONLY candidate to show any understanding of it at all, let alone has a plan for it.
It isn't just about healthcare, it's about everything a corporation can do in this country either. When will people wake up to what republicans have unleashed on this country?
This covers everything else in every debate. Hands down Warren.
23
What you describe makes Warren a great advisor. Not president. Bernie2020
I agree with Goldberg’s analysis as far as it goes, but she never deals directly with the electoral cost of Warren’s alignment with a variety of policies that are distinctly unpopular outside the left: elimination of private health insurance, full health benefits for undocumented residents, elimination of criminal penalty for undocumented border crossing, even the wealth tax. You can simultaneously support these policies and be concerned that they will be politically unviable in the general election. It’s not enough to shrug and say there’s no such thing as electability (ask McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis). I respect Goldberg and would like to see her deal with those issues more directly.
2
I really like Elizabeth Warren but she is the most divisive nominee of them all. Republicans will never work with her, she wasn’t even acceptable to run the agency she founded. She will do great work in the Senate and is absolutely needed there. We need to have strength in many places.
4
After the last few days' manufactured conflicts with her closest ally in the primary and her cack-handed follow ups, her political instincts, deeply in doubt already with DNA-gate, have been decisively discredited.
I assume that if anyone is paying attention in Iowa or NH, they are as annoyed as everyone else that she's trying to paint Bernie "Honorary Woman" Sanders as sexist. I've not seen anything implying that she has managed to discredit him but instead, people are asking for their Warren contributions back and wafflers have made up their minds to pick him over her.
What she has done is damage her chances of becoming his VP should he win the nomination--something many were thinking would be the best next step in forging a popular progressive coalition. I hope he picks Barbara Lee and that Warren loses her Senate seat in 2024 to someone who has common sense.
2
Using surrogates to accuse Bernie of saying something he's denied is not the best way to unify different groups. More like a divide-and-conquer strategy.
7
She'd be awesome at unifying another losing effort.
6
I am also afraid of a contested convention, because that is when the superdelegates can cast their votes. Bloomberg may have many insiders who support him, as he has been in the political/business spectrum for a while, and superdelegates can have objectives that include both.
I support Warren. I ask around, and many Dems I know do not like Sanders but always end it with "but Warren can't win". I think that Democrats have become their own worse obstructionists. Health Care is a very complex issue----Sanders wants Medicare for All right away in one fell swoop (yes, people will see the complete benefits of this at faster rate, therefore it can retain support) and Warren has acquiesced to incremental implementation. I know something needs to be done, (I commend Obama for the ACA, but it is terribly lacking due it never reaching its true goal) to and I consider Warren's ability to go after the lost taxes to get the needed resources is more pointed and voracious than Sanders---his Senate record is not as impressive as his talky talk about it.
And yes, as far as beating trump, who knows? But we need voter turnout---and the campaign to "vote blue no matter who" starts yesterday.
It's pretty odd to read Michelle Goldberg try to sell Warren as the "Unity candidate", while she simultaneously smears Sanders and tries to blame him, and his supporters for 2016.
Bernie Sanders had 13.2 million votes in the 2016 Democratic primaries. The overwhelming majority of these voters ended up voting for HRC in the general, well exceeding her 3 million popular vote victory against Trump. Instead of blaming Bernie and his supporters for HRC loss, you should be thanking them for their help.
I find this all very depressing. Warren was my second pick, after Bernie, and would have been perfectly happy with her as the nominee. Not anymore. Not after she made veiled suggestions of misogyny, and tries to dig up the divisions from the 2016 election. She is supposed to be his friend.
And then we have to read M.Goldberg tell us all about the Democrats that "detest" Sanders, and then listen to her talk about how Warren can unite the party.. You can't unite people when you're tearing others down.
7
Warren would be great. She should announce her pick for Vp now. She could choose a minority candidate like Kamala Harris, Cory Booker or Julian Castro. She may not have enough minority votes unless she broadens her base with a minority pick. All three have political experience and would be a good VP choice.
Blue wave 2020!
5
@Joe
EW is great. Where I differ with you, no disrespect, is that any candidate shall wait until the very end before selecting a VP, that is until they have a better understanding of which parts of the base he or she needs to reach out to.
Guts would have told me Booker, as a black moderate but his polling was so low, I am not sure. People rave about Stacey but she just have not faced the spotlight and scrutiny asthe candidates have. That would be a big risk if republicans find dirt.
For Warren to resurge and win she will need to defeat Bernie, who is a win at all costs candidate. She needs to go after him with a hammer tong in the debate tonight and surpass him in one of the early states.
Neither Sanders or Warren are unity candidates. We are far better off if they battle and split the progressive vote, leaving room for a moderate nominee.
3
I also have my dark feelings about a woman's ability to overcome many people's perceptions about whether she can actually win. But Hillary might have won!! For me it comes down to Sanders or Warren or (better) both! Let's keep our eyes on the prize.
And Michelle, please dispense with this business about who is a registered (or "real" Democrat). The Democratic Party left it's old garb for triangulation and centrism long ago. Bernie stayed true. Regarding the term socialism, identifying Sanders as a socialist should be avoided as well as people don't discern and are vulnerable to fearmongering. Bernie is as egalitarian as Warren and practical in his idealism. They would make a great pair.
3
I like Warren.
But Unity Candidate she is not.
She is missing the moderates.
3
Bringing the warring factions together is a good thing. More important however is who has the best chance of getting the stable genius out of the White House? My heart says Warren. My head says Biden or Bloomberg. If its Sanders I see Trump winning 40-45 states. If its Warren I see Trump winning 35-40 states. I guess I am just old and cynical.
4
@Murrieta
Your head says Bloomberg. As Mr. Wall Street, Bloomberg would lose more votes than Hillary did with her speeches to Goldman Sachs. Bloomberg is in no position to run against plutocracy - OR the Nanny State.
As for Biden? Trump will carve him up as he dodders and fumbles -- and however unfortunately or wrongly, Hunter is a liability hovering over the campaign. Biden comes across as just another politician -- a senile one, at that.
I don't see Warren as a unity candidate and never have. I don't see that she can attract any blue-color Democrats that voted for Trump in 2016 or wealthy Republican never-Trumpers. The ticket I see that can really create unity would be Sanders/Klobuchar.
2
Agreed. If we are going to stop the downward spiral of this country's past 40 years of elevating US corporate interests above the country's citizens we have to have BIG changes; FDR BIG changes in the way our country is run. We have to have a leader who shows us the way with energy, intelligence, compassion and determination. Warren has shown she is tough and determined and if she remembers to campaign in Trump country and show them what a real sham he is, she will be President in 2020.
2
On paper Warren unites the Democratic party. In reality, she only gets committed votes from Cambridge. She's not even expected to win the NH primary.
If she somehow becomes the nominee, polls show she has little support among black and Latino voters who may not support Trump but will stay home.
The warring factions among the Democratic leadership are not as neatly reflected in support for the candidates.
2
"Warren has the best chance of bringing the Democratic Party together."
No, maybe she HAD a chance to be the unity candidate, until she claimed that Bernie said a woman couldn't win. But Bernie denies it, and we'll never know for sure what was said. But whatever was said, there goes unity.
1
When the left wing of the Democratic Party is losing the electability argument, its representatives will say it has no idea of know who would be more electable.
True, polls are slippery and tilted by name recognition. But it’s not hopeless. You can fall back on history. Has any candidate proposing a 20% increase in the size of government ever won election? Er, no. Has any candidate who was very far from the median voter’s policy preferences ever won election? Double no. Remember that Kennedy did not run on the civil rights legislation that LBJ passed, that Roosevelt was running during an epic depression, that Obama ran on national unification after another depression, while wisely refusing to quantify anything. If you are really terrified of Trump, as you should be, then WarSands is not your pick in the primary.
1
@Ex-Texan
We shall find out whether or not a bigger Government, one focusing on actually doing something for the people, as something people support or not. The reagan-point you are making is really dating back from the 70s but today we are in a vastly different situation. Hunger for populist policies is on the rise on the left and on the right. None of Trump voters actually care about the deficit nor the size of the Government because if they did, Trump popularity in his base would be really low by now. Government deficit and aggregated expenses have never been bigger.
I suuport EW as the most serious, competent, hard working and focused candidate by far. She will be a great president.
3
Sorry Hillary was the worse candidate possible. As to a riff in the Democratic Party health care is and should be in the hands of those who have seen the failure of the past and do not want to repeat it. Nothing ever works that has not been tried Warren's position needs work but it is better than what we have now. It is time to try a system that hasn't ever been tried. Both Bernie and Elizabeth have a system that has never been tried here in the USA.
4
While I read and agree with Michelle Goldberg regularly, I disagree with this column. Her husband does work for the Warren campaign -- a clear compromise to Michelle's impartiality. The column's claim that Warren is a "unity" candidate is simply not true -- whether among Democrats or the American electorate in general. Warren's Medicare - for - All is highly divisive. Because Warren recognizes the divisiveness of her medicare plan, she has back off from pushing it on the campaign trail. Except for Sanders, Warren stands with the other leading contenders for "weak" support, not the strong support claimed by Michelle. Warren's candidacy -- contrary to the article's claim -- would exacerbate factionalism. Some of Warren's statements and implications put off many of us who might otherwise support her. Implying that those who do not agree with her are afraid and lacking in imagination is one example. Finally, Michelle leaves out one huge element -- winning back those voters who twice voted Obama, then voted Trump. They number six million. Clearly there are other candidates who can appeal to these voters far, far better than Warren -- Buttigieg and Klobuchar to name two.
6
@MidWesternReader
I am one of those Obama to Trump voter. And I would have voted for Bernie in 2016, I just could cope having a warmonger, HRC, in the White House. The one thing I will not do is vote for any free trade centrist democrat. I will support an economic patriot and hence will support any of EW or Bernie.
As far as I can tell, around me, almost nobody will switch back to support Joe, let alone Bloomberg or even less Buttigieg. Some may come back for Bernie or EW.
I believe what you take as fact is seriously mistaken.
2
Another way to look at this is, who is the most likely to lose to Trump? According to Rick Wilson it's Sanders. He might be right.
7
@Robert Rick Wilson is no longer a Republican, but he continues to have his own agenda. He will do all he can to make sure that America never becomes a socialist (or even Social Democratic) country.
Not hardly. She is too extreme.
Now Amy Klobuchar is a winner and a moderate, and level headed. I have never seen her waving her arms around and shouting.
10
As if “no we can’t” is an appealing political message. Amy is just not presidential material. Her mindset is that of a legislator.
1
A Michelle endorsement (as well as ones by other significant influencers) should come sooner rather than later in this nomination process so that there will be more time for hopeful consensus before November. That said, Warren, who is one of the most qualified to run, hasn't yet unpacked the Trump lies and insults that still haunt Hillary and throw Republicans into hissy fits
of epic proportion. Her propositions strike fear into the hearts and minds of those forever resistant to change, even if that change can benefit them.
It is true that Warren has tries to be all things to all people. She wants to please the people who want health care and at the same time please the people who don't want to pay for it.
I will vote for her if she gets the nomination , but my concern is that her personal story has too many contradictions and that Trump will be able to effectively use this against her if she ever faces him in a debate.
This has nothing to do with her gender. There are women out there who could beat Donald Trump. I believe that Tulsi Gabbard could beat him. The press treats her with kid gloves, but Trump will not be so kind.
Good analysis. I think she is the only candidate who can unite Democrats and defeat Trump.
4
Warren was my pick to win the nomination 9 months ago, but her laundry list of giveaways and attacks on the existence of private insurance would drive middle class moderates to vote for Trump out of pure economic survival. Plus, her problems at times with basic truths that don't fit her narrative, like forgetting her son went to a private school, make her seem very unauthentic.
3
Never heard that one before. Your line of attack on EW is gender based and sexist. Attacking woman and their anger or authenticity is the most common sexist trope, especially when making stuff up or out of context.
How about a real lie? Joe trying to convince us his vote really was against the war? He should just apologize and move on.
The more important question is which candidate has the best shot of unifying America.
This election will be a slog, but I believe that any of the current Democratic candidates has the capability to win if they run a great campaign.
What I think about more is the day after Inauguration Day 2021. Which of the Democrats has the best shot then for an approval rating above 60 percent?
My gut says that Warren doesn’t get us there. I think Mayor Pete has the best chance to break the deadlock of the culture war that is tearing this county apart. His return to his hometown will mean something to all the people living in crumbling hometowns. His military service will mean something to veterans and to many conservatives. And his husband will mean a great deal to families like mine. And if the Democrats don’t tear each other to sheds in this primary, his policy proposals really should satisfy and unite the American left.
I agree that Democrats can agree on Warren, I’m not sure America can.
4
Agree and would add who wouldn’t lose Congress in 2022.
1
@Alison Hart
I'm gay (and a unifier), so Mayor Pete should be my sentimental favorite. Unfortunately, his cold, slick technocratic approach and his ties to the plutocracy (i.e., McKinsey) have turned me off and turned me away. We need more than bureaucratic "best practices" to bring us together. Just ask the black people of South Bend.
He left McKinsey after a few years. He’s committed almost the last decade of his life to South Bend. I don’t think Warren has plans to move back to Oklahoma anytime soon, and I suspect a few Oklahomans have taken note.
Insisting that those short years at McKinnsey define Pete is an example of the left eating itself for dinner, and letting Trump win.
Thank you for stating the obvious, Liz Warren is the best candidate because she is a uniter, a team player, and intellectually, the best of the bunch.
13
Second take on my support for Elizabeth Warren, this one introducing you to an extraordinary work of art and intellect:
This Life-Secular Faith and Spiritual Freedom (author information at the end).
The book ends with Chapter 6 - Democratic Socialism - followed by Conclusion: Our Only Life.
This book ended my reservations about Ocasio-Cortez and other speaking of Democratic Socialism instead of Social Democracy but we cannot get there - Democratic Socialism until we have spent a few years having what all other advanced democracies already have.
Elizabeth Warren can lead us to take one or more of the first steps toward what all those other countries have, Universal Health Care for example.
Perhaps in a decade or two when we have caught up with those countries, the time will have arrived for the Democratic Socialism that Martin Hägglund, Professor of Comparative Literature and Humanities at Yale University lays out, after giving us brilliant analyses of the work of scholars whose names you all know.
Maybe then, even America will be ready for an Ocasio-Cortez-minded individual. But first Warren, still a capitalist at heart.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
13
@Larry Lundgren - One of those oddities of the review system, the first submission, hours before this, has not been accepted yet, if ever. But the book, This Life, has become so important to me that I am happy to see 2d submission in print.
@Larry Lundgren : you've been away from the USA an extremely long time, and you are hopelessly out of touch with contemporary American thought if you believe Alexandria Ocasio Cortez speaks for more than a tiny fraction of radical elites in Big Blue Coastal cities.
If she is the future of the Democratic Party...I would tremble for their future, because it's going to crash and burn. The reason there IS a Trump Presidency is a reaction AGAINST this kind of fanatical Marxist (academic) Socialism on the left...precisely what your obscure, precious, academic reference is about. It's out of touch with reality and it has nearly zero appeal to American voters. (It does, however, give the lie to the constant whine of the Dems that "no, we aren't SOCIALISTS!" when at the radical end, they absolutely are.)
@Concerned Citizen - CC where did I say anything at all about Ocasio Cortez speaking for any more than a tiny fraction of radical elites. You could at least read the comment carefuilly.
I wrote: "An Ocasio-Minded individual." In other words in two decades it might be possible for some society, not necessarily the American, to take the step away from capitalism that Martin Hägglund sets forth in Chapter 6 of his book - see comment - to create Democratic Socialism.
Obscure, precious, academic reference! Have you read the book no? Save your adjectives for something you know about.
No harm meant.
Larry
I like Sen. Warren. She was a law professor at Penn when I was a student there, and I recall she was well regarded by students (I never took her class, although I took her husband's class.) I was also favorably impressed by her book, "The Two Income Trap," which she wrote before becoming involved in politics. But the linchpin of her platform is the "wealth tax," which is unconstitutional. Let's be clear - I'm not saying that I oppose a wealth tax. Rather, I am saying that under the US Constitution, a federal tax on wealth (as opposed to income) is not authorized by the 16th Amendment, and thus cannot be imposed in anything like the manner described by Sen. Warren.
I can't support a candidate (a law professor no less!) who would base her entire platform on an unconstitutional tax.
2
The argument that a wealth tax is unconstitutional is just one of many lies that bankers and billionaires came upon with to fight Warren candidacy. A wealth tax is essentially a tax assessed on property. All Americans already pay taxes assessed on property at the local level. If a tax assessed on property was unconstitutional none of the US local jurisdictions would be able to to levy property taxes to pay for schools, libraries, roads, etc.
4
@The Judge : what is scary about the Democrats -- yes, even in the face of Trump's various incompetencies -- is the reason Warren -- a law professor! -- can propose this is the belief they can just "overturn existing laws" by executive orders -- as Obama did eventually (despite earlier pleas by him that he COULD NOT do precisely what he DID DO) -- and the new meme of "just stuff the Supreme Court with 4 or 6 or 8 new hard-left radical Justices!"
Just to ask. Isn’t property tax constitutional?
She does not excite this middle aged woman. We need a candidate that disaffected Republicans can support. We need a president that sane Republicans can work with. For a number of reasons, some unfair- I don’t think Warren can do this. This middle aged woman is excited and inspired by the candidacy of Mayor Pete.
3
You make some good points, but can she successfully woo Republicans and past Trump voters ? That’s where the real focus belongs and where the battle will be.
2
I disagree. I used to support Warren and contribute to her campaign, but that was when I thought she was a true policy wonk with charm. Then I started reading her policies.
I concluded, starting with Medicare for All and followed by the Wealth Tax, that her policies are too easily attacked by the opposition with credible arguments and that she wouldn’t survive the Republican onslaught of criticism waiting for our nominee.
We cannot afford 4 more years of Trump.
6
@Patricia
You must be a free trade corporate democrat if that is your position. I believe working and middle class have fled the democratic parties because of centrist free trade policies enabled and supported by voters such as yourself.
Say what you want about Trump and republicans, they stopped a long time ago trying to win through the middle lane. They appeal to right wing and populist values and they win. I cannot support any status quo candidate that will transform and solidify the Democratic Party as the party of the elite and Wall Street for a full generation. If we lose, we lose with our values. In the long term, we will win by supporting values and ideals, not bean counting and Reagan-inspired philosophies. My guts tells me there is a lot more populist anger out there that’s is here for the taking than there is upper middle class fear of higher taxes and big change.
6
@R. Patricia Brown cited Medicare for All and the wealth tax, and yet you come out of the gate with the epithet "free trade corporate democrat"? Newsflash - Sen. Warren has endorsed Trump's USMCA trade deal.
As I noted in my own comment, Sen. Warren's wealth tax is unconstitutional. And Sen. Warren's Medicare for All program is an obvious vote loser, and likely fatal in a general election, considering that most people with private health insurance in this country are satisfied with their insurance.
3
I certainly do want global free “fair” trade and not tariffs. But that wasn’t my point.
Medicare for All is attractive to many voters, but I can give you a list of 10 credible reasons that I think it’s a loser in November starting with the most obvious personal fact—I had a choice of Medicare or an employer based Cigna plan. Guess what? I chose the Cigna plan. Don’t take away my choice. My experience with the federal government? One hour waits on the phone with Social Security. Outdated computer systems. There are better policy arguments to expand insurance coverage and reduce cost without alienating 160 million voters.
I consulted a CPA who is a CFA who told me the Wealth Tax is unconstitutional. I’m not opposed to higher taxes even on myself; I’m opposed to easily debunked policy proposals.
I want big change from policies I can defend.
The problem is that while she brings in large crowds of supporters, she also pushes wavering Republicans to "come home" to their party's nominee. Your extolling Warren, and to a lesser extent Sanders, for exciting Democratic crowds while ignoring the effects they have on disaffected Republicans makes as much sense as a hockey team pulling its goalie from the opening faceoff.
5
@Scott
Have you ever been to a Trump event live? I did. Do you know when the crowd gets the most agitated and screaming? Every time Trump talks about Biden or Obama. Distant second is Nancy. When Trump talks about Bernie or EW, the crowd laughs a bit. That’s it. Bernie and EW do not get them worked out. Joe surely does.
I actually believe Bernie and EW and the better candidates. Because some of their ideas and themes are essentially left wing versions of what Trump is saying. Whether it is about free trade, the warmongers that brought us Iraq, economic patriotism, and a beautiful healthcare for everybody that is “so easy” (not me, Trump’s words, who is shamelessly lying). Do not trust the false “centrism” narrative, that is so 1990s. Polls today mean nothing and there are many more populist anti-elite switch votes than there are Wall Street “centrist” switch votes.
3
@R.
The people you talk about roaring in outrage at Trump rallies about Biden are not the reluctant Trump voters who thought Clinton was a bridge too far to turn against their party.
Ever hear of the Romney-Clinton voter? How many of those voters do you think Bernie or EW would keep in the D column? They might keep a majority of those voters, but any loss would be significant. Further, they offer nothing to address the policy concerns of the Romney-reluctant Trump voters to convince them to cross the divide between Trump and the Democrats.
I’m sitting out the entire nomination process and I’ll get behind whomever the Democrats nominate.
6
Warren is a non starter for me. I do not see her unifying the party at all. Sanders and Warren will guarantee Trump a second term. Amy, Pete, and Joe are our best chance to win the WH.
6
Likewise, Joe, Amy and Pete are complete non-starters for me. They should create their own Wall Street party and stop hijacking the soul of FDR’s party. We will see then which ideas have more support.
And If it’s them, I will vote Trump, at least he is an economic patriot. And good luck trying to rally the populist base around a Wall Street free trade nominee.
1
No, let's call that the last of the hopes. Elizabeth as the presidential candidate is a formula for defeat. Oh, she could win big in New York and California, but that doesn't win the Electoral College. You need to move out in the country and talk with voters in the Midwest, where the contest for President will be won for lost. With Elizabeth, it's lost. There are at least five candidates that could do better.
10
Wait until Wall Street Pete or Credit Card Joe gets wiped out. Whatever happens, Wall Street voters such as yourself will keep pushing the Wall Street agenda and the false narrative of electability. I can’t wait until wall streeters split out and create their own Wall Street party. We will see then who has the votes.
1
@R. Wow! Did you peg me wrong. A live on a small sheep farm in Ohio. It's everything my wife can do to keep me tracking sheep manure in the house. And I'm sure everyone in town looks at me as one of those Wall Street types when I drive my 10-year old Honda Civic into the parking lot of the local grocery store, wearing ragged shirts and torn jeans. Yep, that's me, Wall Street Logan.
One thing for sure. Elizabeth doesn't stand a chance in Ohio or Michigan. Probably not Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, either. A loser we cannot afford to support.
I'm still an Amy Klobuchar voter.
1
It's a shame we have to consider such things. But the GOP has worked long and hard to create a template for 'articulate, policy-wonky white woman identified with Beltway academics' and they will beat it like a drum.
(Don't forget that in much of heartland America, working couples assume finances, telephones. and votes are shared resources.)
4
In any event, I personally believe that Bloomberg is the Dems' best hope. He has the finances to steamroller Trump at every level. He's more than qualified, has a personal success story that far outshines Trumps, has been at the forefront of all the most critical issues like climate change and gun control for decades and is a solid, safe choice. Bloomberg for Pres with Elizabeth Warren as Veep. Works for me!
7
@Mark Crozier
Sadly, I kind of agree. Bloomberg cannot win without the populist base. I don’t see him selecting Bernie. But I do see him with the guts to make his peace with EW as VP nominee. Bloomberg is a winner, he is smart. He will make the move, even if that means pivoting left on some positions. For that matter, Joe Biden would make the same move for EW. Only way to rally the base.
1
A 70 presidential and VP candidate? I’m not sure.
By attacking Bernie with "the girl" card she has demonstrated that her desire to win is greater than her desire to unseat Trump. I won't support anyone with that attitude, even if they otherwise have a valid point.
4
@Rustamji
Your reference to McGovern is misguided. I wrote a longer comment earlier about this election and why voters such as yourself keep drawing the wrong conclusions. I finished a biography of Nixon: there were very strong under currents at play then, with Vietnam and the post civil right back lash. That was when Nixon came up with the genius “Silent Majority” of winning over the Deep South to the red column. 1972 is actually when the Deep South turned red.
Today, it’s a very different environment. Parts of the Deep South are moving back blue under demographic pressure, and our politics are first and foremost shifting under the weight of populist pressure and working class anxiety, which are turning red because (I am simplifying) of long standing support by democrats for free trade and immigration. Call it unjust but democrats are taking the fall for that.
You want a catastrophic 2020 and another 4 years of Trump? Joe is your guy.
Remember “Don’t blame me, I’m from Massachusetts”. That’s a bumper sticker from 1972 after Richard Nixon beat progressive candidate George McGovern 49 states to 1, with only MA backing McGovern.
Warren may appeal to enough Democrats to win the nomination, but will be destroyed in the general election. The only candidate with a chance of beating Trump right now is blue dog Mike Bloomberg — but he’ll have trouble getting through the progressives who vote in the primaries to decide their nominee.
8
@Pragmatist in CT : a lot of folks have forgotten 1972 or were not born then (or too young to remember it).
It seems very different looking back with hindsight -- it seems OBVIOUS McGovern could not against the very experienced Nixon (who had been VP twice, and ran for POTUS in 1960, gaining valuable knowledge).
If you WERE alive then and of voting age....the Dems really believed wholeheartedly that McGovern was going to win. They were POSITIVE his message reverberated with the middle & working classes, the heartland. They were SURE everyone else realized how awful Nixon was and would NEVER re-elect him (remember, Nixon -- like Trump -- was routinely called "a liar").
In other words: the left easily deluded themselves that "Democratic Socialism" was embraced by most of the nation, and was well on its way towards reality. This was 48 years ago.
2
Schoolmarms can rap the knuckles and shame the students.
They can create a sort of order, but only through smug and annoying authoritorianism.
No schoolmarm can win the hearts and minds of free-thinking Americans voting for their president. True, one imperious schoolmaster managed to win in 1912 (Wilson), but that was only because TR ran as a strong third-party candidate and the incumbent Taft came in third. Very odd situation, with Wilson only getting 42% of the vote. Warren appears to be trying to channel Wilson, but that is not the situation on the ground today.
Were the Democrats to unify around Warren, that would be disastrous for the party. The party knows better than to jump off the left cliff with Warren, AOC and Sanders, though, and so will survive to regroup, maybe at the convention. Whether Bloomberg is the answer then is not obvious. Lieberman would be a better pick if you're looking for candidates in that apparently-very-special 77-78 age cohort. (Bloomberg, Biden and Lieberman all are are 77; Sanders is 78.)
There is an a constitutional 35-year-old age limit for president. Should we up it through an amendment to 75?
Of course not -- although that would knock out Trump, who is a mere baby at 73.
What is going on here?
1
@Dave Oedel
Do you intend to vote for the candidate who would make the best president, or for a candidate that would benefit the Democratic Party?
Should our priority be to elect a good president, or just to get rid of Trump?
I too, go back and forth about who would be the strongest nominee against Trump. Strongest in a fair fight that is, and chances are that 2020 will be no fairer than 2016...voter disenfranchisement, trolls both domestic and foreign, the electoral college, questionable voting machines, etc.
I also lament the fact that "electability" supercedes ideas or policy, but alas--that's the hand we're dealt, and that's the hand we have to play. So let's consider:
Electability (uber alles)
Bringing the Democratic Party together
Big turnout of youth and minority voters
All of the above could also be described as "generating enthusiasm".
There are 2 Democratic candidates I would LOVE to see occupy the Oval Office. Like Michelle, I am far from optimistic that that they would prevail, even in a fair fight.
There is one possible candidate--not currently in the race--who would tick off each of those boxes handily--enthusiasm, turning out the vote, bringing the party together, and the biggie--electability.
Michelle Obama is not running. I have the sneaking feeling she's not interested. When it comes down to it, I would prefer Sanders or Warren. But when it comes to electability, yes she could.
@bobg
Michelle Obama is very popular, that is right. Does it mean that she would make a good president? I don't think so; she is a celebrity and President Obama's wife, but totally unqualified for the presidency -- she probably knows that.
@Fran
Not "16m ago"; actually hours ago.
I disagree with the author’s conclusion. Among all democratic candidates, her rhetoric is one of the most divisive (probably only second to Bernie). My opinion is that Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Booker all have much more inclusive messages than Warren.
7
@JGM
I don’t know where you go her divisiveness from. She is the least divisive out there. You must have not received the attack ads from Wall Street Pete or Credit Card Joe I guess. We need a Wall Street Party so that voters such as yourself can go there, stop hijacking the soul of FDR’s party, and then you can count your meager share of the vote.
A Warren nomination guarantees Trump’s re-election. I am hopeful that voters know better.
13
You must be talking about Credit Card Joe or Wall Street Pete. The middle centrist lane is a dead end.
Thank you, thank you Michelle. I’m a Biden supporter and you’ve just stoked the fire between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in same way Clinton supporters tried to suppress Bernie in 2016. We all know how that ended; Bernie supporters refused to vote for Hillary Clinton. It will happen again, but this time Joe Biden will emerge the Democratic nominee and is the best candidate to beat Trump. Joe has the electability and every Democrat will come out to vote for Joe Biden because they so fear Trump winning a second term.
6
@biglatka
I am a registered democrat and I will never "come out to vote for Joe Biden" just because of his "electability"; if enough voters want more Trump, let them have it.
3
@Biglatka
If Joe is the nominee, I will vote Trump. And good luck to Joe trying to win over the populist base because most of my friends will either sit this one out or they will vote Trump.
“Electability” is a fool’s errand. You are making the common mistake of projecting your own prejudices onto others.
@Fran If you are willing to stay at home if the Dems nominate Biden, then you are a no Democrat. Time to switch your registration. Any Democrat knows that the the 1,000th best Democrat is the obvious choice in a contest against Trump.
Just look at the recent insanity around the killing of Suleimani. It is obvious that trump just decided to kill Suleimani on a whim, leaving his inept minions to scramble to find an after-the-fact legal justification. Their flailing is truly terrifying. And just because Trump hasn't gotten us all killed yet doesn't mean that his incompetence and defective personality can be tolerated any longer.
I'd vote for my local part-time school board member over Trump, so while Biden isn't my first choice, I would walk through fire to vote for him over Trump.
With her public statement against Bernie Sanders, Warren proved herself not to be the uniter but divider of the Democrat vote-bank. If they are to win in the next election, Democrats ought to do better than Hillay 2016 and have someone who is not hated by Republicans to run for the President whether it be Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, or someone else.
6
There are three major problems with this analysis.
First, a series of polls suggests that Biden voters favor Sanders as their second choice. Even if other polls lead to Warren, clearly the first set of polls suggest that Biden voters are open to Sanders. Collectively therefore we can conclude that given that Biden is the most conservative of the major candidates and Sanders is clearly the least conservative (notwithstanding Sanders hope for conserving the ecological system), Sanders is a unity candidate. Therefore, the preposition "the" in the original article is misplaced.
Second, the article says nothing about Republican or Independent voters and whether Warren as opposed to Sanders can win these over. What about those who tend not to vote and how Sanders might win them over through his populist appeal? Thus, the word "unity" by restricting itself to the Democratic Party is missing the larger and most important context for "unity of voters."
Third, to the extent this article is widely cited and read it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more one says that Warren is "the" unity candidate, the more it is so. Therefore, one wonders what the difference is between "opinion" and "advocacy" in a newspaper column. Perhaps we need a new section of the paper called "advocacy."
10
After today's "leak" about Sanders allegedly saying "a woman will never win," I am 100% against Warren. Even if Sanders said something like this, it was taken clearly taken out of context. And why reveal this now?
Despicable politics. And combined with Warren's tendency to evade questions, a deal killer. She will not be the nominee.
20
Elizabeth Warren is and will be a lousy candidate until she stops apologizing for speaking the truth, and stops backing away from the Truth.
My private health insurance was better than medicare is now, but a full Universal Health Care system would be much better.
However, it does not have to be single payer, and should not be "Medicare for All".
Every industrialized democracy in the world has universal health care, and all are better than our system. However, of the 4 different types I see among them, two are not single payer, and cover the range.
Look at Switzerland and Japan for one of the most expensive and one of the least expensive, yet neither is Medicare for All equivalent, and the most expensive would save us about $1 trillion a year.
Tinyurl.com/sickroundtheworld
3
The idea that Warren appeals only to better-off voters is peculiar, because her research and the foundation for her ideology is what circumstances or events drove people into bankruptcy. She is from a working class background and, as an aspirational woman at time when women are still struggling to be heard, she developed a compassionate view of the world through what she learned.
We Democrats must address economic corruption, inequality, lack of decently plaid work, etc. — an economic analysis—I’m speaking to the centrists here. Because centrists are in the center of what? The discourse moved so far to the right, that centrists are Republicans. The middle class stands on scree, there can’t be a center ideologically if there is such a diminished center economically. Those still in the middle class have no idea what is happening around them, what has made fascism appealing to white working class and hopelessness in the black working class. People are really scared and arguing about traffic lights and whether there should be any low-income housing in middle-class neighborhood is the proverbial furniture moving on the Titanic...or musical chairs.
Warren will work to cut out corruption from finance/tax evasion/credit/real estate, bring us a Green New Deal with jobs, forgive much of student debt, making voting real again for the disenfranchised, renew ecological regulations, and universal single-payer health care. If that isn’t progressive enough for Bernie voters, well.....
13
Warren offers something for everyone. But that doesn't make her every man's candidate. Her campaign promotes a very large beneficent government. I would guess that most would resist substantially increasing the size of government. They lack faith that more government would serve the public good. Putting great faith in government and growing it is a dubious proposition. A million more bureaucrats to run a thousand more programs is a very hard sell.
3
@michjas
Unless someone can successfully illustrate that the Reagan-inspired Republican credo of "smaller government" simply means that the people who already have the money get to keep it.
Once that plain-sight secret is let out of the bag even The Base won't have it.
9
@michjas
Yet, when it comes to buying guns and bombs and spending an astonishing 720 Billions on defense that is an easy sell. What about the tax cut, easy sell too, but it is not really a cut since it is mostly running a credit card that will come due eventually.
This administration is not very effective and is also making governmental agencies less effective in some case quite purposely.
That does not mean running a large government can't be done effectively.
Glorifying the efficiency of private business is kind of a joke, how many failures for how many successes are they out there ? None of those private ventures really last without tremendous change, most loose their way.
Board level decisions are anything but rational, in too many cases it is about egos, getting ahead in the short run as well as running away from failures. Fiduciary duty … window dressing...
3
Michas,
Big government or Bigger Business ( like Enron ?!).
I love it when people don’t even critically think to step 2.