Elizabeth Warren Is the Democrats’ Unity Candidate

Her nomination would offer the best hope of bringing together the party’s warring factions.

Comments: 197

  1. This analysis is so incredibly flawed and, as Ms. Goldberg suggests herself, may be tainted by her own conflict of interest. The Democratic Party thinking in the last election was that Hillary Clinton's email scandal was much to do about nothing, it certainly would not alienate any Democratic voters and not hurt her in attracting moderate Republicans with Trump as the candidate. That was absolutely dead wrong. Elizabeth Warren's baggage is that she lived an entire ascendant career as an educator promoting her Native American heritage. At the University of Pennsylvania, she was listed as a Native American professor and touted as being only one of eight minority faculty to receive an award for outstanding performance. At Harvard, she went right along with the college calling her the first female law professor of color. And then we find out that her Native American heritage is so imperceptibly miniscule that she refused to reveal the results of her DNA testing. Worse though is that the Cherokee Nation severely rebuked her and stated she was not one of theirs. And prior to this outing of her faking her minority status, she did absolutely nothing as a legislator to help the Native Americans. Elizabeth Warren is brilliant, well spoken and she has some good ideas. But she has far heavier baggage than Hillary Clinton ever did. Her misrepresentation of her race for most of her life will absolutely ensure she is never elected President of the United States.

  2. Elizabeth Warren may indeed represent the Democrats' best hope of bringing the various factions of their party together. But that just means the Democrats are in bigger trouble than I thought in trying to beat Donald Trump. In 2020, it's not going to be enough for Democrats to bring themselves together. They are also going to have to attract those Republicans and independents who normally would vote Republican but can't stand Trump. Democrats ignore them at their own peril.

  3. @Jay Orchard You believe Obama to Trump switch voters are mostly free trade “centrists”? You are badly mistaken. The vast majority are working class populist voters. Your thought process might have worked back in 1992 or even 2012. No more. This is the age of Trump and populist politics.

  4. Yes, yes, yes. She is super smart, she works hard, she is down to earth, and she listens to people--and then she crafts policy on based in real research. This is why She Has A Plan For That. Who can win? It's all about voter turnout. Regardless of who the eventual nominee is, Democrats need to unify to make phone calls, write letters and postcards, and knock on doors to get out the vote in swing states. You don't try to convince people of your views; you just try to get more people to show up at the polls. There are more Democrats than Republicans. Wisconsin was lost in 2016 by a mere 22,000 votes. The best nominee is the one who inspires more people to reach out to folks who think their votes don't matter.

  5. And EW is far better at reaching out than Wall Street Pete or Credit Card Old Joe.

  6. Hello... Earth to Michelle... Warren a unifying candidate??? Warren offers a similar brand of Democratic Socialism to Sanders which is highly alienating to many Democrats. As you note she shares "Sanders’s economic populism." I don't believe populism embraced by the majority of Democrats. Tellingly, you twice cite a poll that explicitly surveyed "Democratic primary voters." Primary voters are disproportionally from the more extreme, ideologically rigid factions of the party and not necessarily representative of the voters who will decide the general election. You might argue that Warren is more unifying than Sanders, but that is not the same as saying she is a "unity candidate." Far from it. The key Congressional races that allowed the Democratic party to regain control of the house were by more moderate Democrats that fought in key purple districts. These are the districts the Democrats need to win in the general election against Trump.

  7. @EDT So you think unity means free trade Wall Street “centrist” politicians? They had their chance. No more. The wind is blowing towards populist politicians and economic patriots. I support EW.

  8. She rose in the polls as the Establishment substitute for Bernie Sanders . She received lavish praise and coverage from corporate media . She was like Bernie but more polished . She embraced his Progressive platform and took it up a notch with professorial refinement and polish . She was an insurance policy against the threat of Bernie Sanders and liberal punditry puffed her up accordingly . I watched the whole dynamic unfold and then I watched it unravel as she regressed to the mean and caved on MedicareForAll just as we knew she would . Sadly she dragged her feet in doing it just enough to have the fickle media become less enamored with her and the flowing praise started to ebb. I like Elizabeth Warren but she’s not the transformational figure we need . If she can’t stand her ground against the pressure of the corporate media , she isn’t suited for the task of taking on Donald Trump . Fortunately we have someone who’s custom made to counter the Fraudster in Chief . Bernie2020

  9. Under Warren, Democrats will be United and Trump will win a second,term. Under a moderate, such as Klobushar or Buttigieg, Democrats will not be United, but have a shot at thw,White House. Guess which one I choose? If only Warren hadn't chosen the election losing position of Medicare for all, she'd probably be ahead of Sanders already. For the good of the country, let's hope she and Bernie, both of whom I like, stumble soon and give us a shot at dethroning Trump.

  10. Amy or Buttigieg have no chance. Zero. The market for a free trade internationalist is pretty much dead. Left or right, the demand is now for patriotic economic policies and populist ideas. Besides, Amy, and ever more Buttigieg, cannot this time count on the support of the populist wing of the party. They will sit this one out. Michelle is right, any candidate who wants to win must find a way to bring the base together. Unfortunately for Buttigieg, he has managed to seriously antagonize the populist and the progressive wing in a very short time frame. In a way that neither Amy nor say, Booker, have. You should listen to one or two of the more popular podcast from more populist journalists. Buttigieg is hated even more than Trump. Or look at stats among 19-29 demographics.

  11. Republicans love to show the county-by-county map colored in red or blue according to which party won the most votes in 2016. Of course Democrats will comfort themselves that they won almost 3 million more votes than the Republicans. But the map does convey some hard truths for Democrats: Problems because of the electoral college and problems winning the Senate. The obsession with the presidency has obscured the necessity of branding the party in such a way that the Party can win the Senate, if anything is to be accomplished and Mitch McConnell won't have a veto on Supreme Court nominees. This election shapes up as Democrats making gains in the suburbs and Republicans making gains in small town/rural areas. Democrats need to find a way to stop these Republican gains if they are to both win the White House and the Senate. Only one candidate has made a large part of her political identity concern with small town/rural issues and it's not Warren. It's Klobuchar.

  12. @LewisPG There are some problems with your analysis. One, I am very seriously concerned with the lack of enthusiasm and energy in Amy’s support base. Second, I don’t believe “no we can’t” will be a winning political message comes November 2020. It’s a simplification but when people think about her, that’s the message that comes to mind. Mostly, I believe you are missing the forest for the trees, no disrespect. For sure, Amy has unbeatable appeal in sections of the mid west where she is coming from. But the bigger picture of senate and house politics are that of shifting state politics. Large parts of the Deep South turning blue, Texas and Georgia for example. And part of the old industrial north and Midwest gradually turning red.

  13. @R Is it inevitable that upper midwest states turn red? With Warren as the nominee, I fear it may be. And if your strategy includes Warren winning in Texas, well, get ready for four more years of despair. As for characterizing Klobuchar's message as "no we can't," this is just the spin of those on the far left pushing the fantasy of the Great Enthusiasm Wave. The truth is that the Warren agenda, taken in its totality, is a loser in the general election. There is an article in Politico about House candidates in swing districts. Spoiler alert: they don't want Sanders or Warren at the top of the ticket. And Senate candidates in purple states definitely are not running on M4A. When the presidential candidate's platform is anathema to House and Senate candidates in races that decide control of the two chambers, that is a recipe for disaster.

  14. Dear Men: I hope you can try your best to appreciate what it is like for women like me, who, for the very first time, see our experiences and our struggles reflected and understood in such a deeply resonate way, by a candidate like Elizabeth Warren. Like Warren, many of us fought hard against a system that told us to step aside and trust others to know what was best for us, but we prevailed, often demoralized, always resilient. In her hard won success and life-long fight for others, we see our best selves. And now, not a news cycle goes by where it isn't explained to us that we once again need to step aside and put our trust in a more moderate, male candidate who is better equipped to beat trump, not because they are the better candidate, but because somehow Warren is "unelectable". Please don't underestimate her, and please don't underestimate the passion she can generate among folks like me.

  15. @Kathryn Neel Passion in people from Maryland is not important. Will she generate passion in Wisconsin or Michigan voters? Of course she won't. If a candidate can't win the Electoral College then supporting them is pointless.

  16. If our votes don’t matter our system is pointless and should be challenged all the way to the supreme court. Abolish Electoral College. Universal Primary Day. Both Primary Day and Election Day a holiday. Maybe we can get our nation back, then.

  17. Your argument is for a woman President, not for Warren. You are like the Democrats who foisted Hillary Clinton onto the stage even though she had less favorable ratings than any other democrat because they longed for the same ideal. The result was Trump. Congratulations. Please don’t start with this again. Now is not the time.

  18. I want to write about the catastrophic McGovern loss to Nixon in 1972, in light of comments I have seen from fellow commenters who are skeptical of EW chances. I recently finished reading Nixon biography and how he successfully captured post civil rights white anxiety (“the forgotten men and women” and the “silent majority”) and turned the deep south red for over a generation. Only now, decades later, parts of the Deep South are showing signs of turning blue under the pressure of demographic change. It is a mistake to pin the McGovern loss on only his progressive politics. There were these very strong under currents at play back then in this Vietnam / post Civil Rights era. And 1972 was the year when the Deep South did turn red. This was a much bigger trend than just McGovern and people who keep bringing that up are drawing the wrong lessons. EW peculiar politics (“progressive capitalist”, populist and technocrat rolled into one) may be a fit for today’s changing politics. Fast increasing inequalities, middle class financial stress, hunger for right o left populism, drop of support for traditional free trade and internationalist engagement. It may be that EW is the right candidate now. Is she the best choice out there? I don’t know. But she is my personal choice and her intellect, stamina, seriousness, moral compass and working class roots will make her a great president.

  19. I watched Warren’s opening campaign rally speech and loved her for the fighting spirit she has . She wants to fight for real normal people not for corporations but she turned me off with her digging in of her heels on the Medicare for All . I think if she had taken a more centrist position right away she would have had my vote She’s my second choice though to Biden , who’s my first and who I still think can unify the party to win.

  20. Unifying among democrats? That is irrelevant. What counts is unifying across all people if we are actually trying to win the office, not the primary. Warren is unfortunately not unifying to the broader public. She refuses to go on Fox news for example. While fox is obviously problematic in many ways, candidates can't just write off 40% of the population. It is almost reminiscent of the "deplorables" incident with hillary. Also, for whatever reason, Warren does not connect well with the working class voter that she would be helping most. This is troubling, but could easily change over time. I think Yang is the best combination of progressive policy goals with the ability to sell them to moderate and even conservative people. He is arguably the most progressive candidate, yet has the strongest crossover support (also is high in favorability among democrats, but as I have said, that is not terribly relevant).

  21. Many of us do not trust the government at all. It's inefficient, doesn't care about anyone but itself, and can often be capricious and cruel in the name of "following the rules". Putting everything else aside, Warren and Sanders want the government to completely run healthcare, and will raise taxes exponentially to pay for it. Before Obamacare, my premiums were lower, now they are higher. I pay much more for medications than I used to. My healthcare is worse today than it was 10 years ago. I can't imagine how bad my healthcare will be in 10 years from now under a completely federalized system. Worse healthcare, higher taxes, and throw in a complete undermining of everything I value, including the protection of Israel, and I couldn't imagine voting for Warren or Sanders. If they're the nominee then I will vote Trump. I suspect that if the economy remains strong, many more, especially in swing states, will feel the same way.

  22. @MJG Obamacare (the ACA) is a very complex set-up built around the existing healthcare system using employer sponsored insurance. It is nothing like universal single payer. It is a fact that the ACA has caused deductibles and co-pay to go up. On the other hand, if you have an existing condition are are not on Medicare, now you can at least find an insurance company since they are not permitted any longer to deny coverage nor charge you more. You have to agree with me. If you want a cheaper system, please go to one of these EW campaign events set up with doctors to properly explain what single payer means. Look also at Canada or France which run on single payer whilst retaining choice of doctors and private sector practitioners. They cost far less and medical outcome are greater. And please don’t mix up Israel into these discussions it sounds like you are mixing everything up.

  23. @R I don't trust the government to run healthcare, period. That's what single payer means, government took healthcare. And Israel is another important consideration for me, so when taken together, along with higher taxes, I can't support Warren, or Sanders for that matter.

  24. The 2016 primary was mild compared to 2008. Bernie's critiques of Clinton were very similar to those used by Obama. In the end he dropped out - not late by any measure - and threw his full support behind Clinton who adopted many of his issues into her platform. An overwhelming number of his supporters voted for Clinton in the general election (look back at 2008 to see how many Clinton supporters defected to McCain). In 2008 a Clinton campaign affiliate circulated a picture of Obama dressed in African clothing to amplify racist chatter about his faith and country of birth. We also know from Wikileaks that DNC officials who were closely aligned with Clinton considered using Sanders's faith to hurt him knowing that many in this country are anti-semitic. 2020 has been more unified than any primary in my memory and critiques have been remarkably mild. Pointing out a basic fact about the demographics of one candidate's supporters is legitimate in discourse about political strategy and electability.

  25. Ms. Warren is too clever by half, American Indian heritage, fired for being pregnant, a medicare for all cost estimate that no budget expert believes (including not one cent of new taxes imposed on the middle class), etc., an authenticity problem. In short, another politician who stretches the truth to the breaking point.

  26. It boils down to winning the key districts in “swing” states. Neither Bernie or Liz do well in those districts and their plans/policies severely out of step with winning platform. If either of these two get the nomination, especially after a protracted fight, it’s 4 more years of Trump. Take it from Rahm Emanuel, David Alexrod, James Carville, and a long list of experienced campaign strategists, both Republican (i.e. Rick Wilson, etc.) and Democratic, with a great track record of getting their candidate elected. Please play it straight, it’s not an election for “the revolution”, but to unite and heal the country after the Trump disaster. The best chance at implementing “progressive” goals is to nominate the person who wins in key electoral districts.

  27. Bloomberg /Warren ticket is the idea combination. After four irrational destructive years, Bloomberg can bring the stability back. Meanwhile Warren can gradually shift the progressive agenda and prepare Warren 2024 take over.

  28. In my pre-retirement career as a public opinion survey designer and analyst at Michigan State's Institute for Public Policy and Social Research I conducted surveys which looked at all factors related to how people tend to vote. There were several personal characteristics where self-identified Republican and Democratic respondents differed from each other: Republicans favored older candidates; Democrats favored candidates from less wealthy backgrounds; Democrats were more likely to consider a female candidate. There was only one personal characteristic favored by 97% of the respondents, with no discernible differences as a function of political party. That was honesty. People want to believe what a candidate says. In separate national polling in 2016, the only candidate of all the contenders who scored lower than Donald Trump, who was rated as honest by 32% of respondents, was Hillary Clinton, at 27%. In addition to that, she came from a wealthy background, was certainly not youthful, and she had been a supporter of Barry Goldwater. But all that aside, she had a history of shading the truth and, like Trump, never conceded that she had done so. In the coming election, Donald Trump will face an opponent who, unless it is Biden, will not have a national track record of truthfulness to attack. But Elizabeth Warren is not youthful and has altered her plans without giving credible reasons for doing so. Given the advantage of incumbency I think Warren will lose to Trump.

  29. @Nat Ehrlich Spot on! It's bizarre that intelligent Times readers seem to not understand that presidential elections are determined by the winner of the Electoral College.

  30. With Trump the alternative, whoever gets the nomination will 'unify Democrats'. Ms. Goldberg's assertion is pointless. The real point is which democratic candidate can attract non-democrat voters who represent THREE FOURTHS of the voting public. And this would be Bernie (and possibly Yang or Gabbard).

  31. Winning the popular vote is not winning unless you win the key districts in certain swing states. Liz and Bernie won’t win those districts. Best chance for a “progressive agenda”, yes it’s Joe! Concentrate on that and getting a Senate majority. Then handle power well to build a durable political coalition to ensure Trumpism assigned to the dust bin of history. Amy, Joe, Mike, Pete could do it, but Joe most likely to win key electoral districts. Nominate accordingly and unite behind him now. Bernie would lose both popular and electoral college vote.

  32. Joe will lose even worse than Hillary. Whatever attack lines she suffered, this is nothing versus what he will suffer. And his turn out will be poor. None of the so-called centrists will win because this time, the populist wing of the party will sit this one out and turn-out will be poor.

  33. @Rational Person Joe is the candidate with largest load of bad decisions, questionable ethics and failed egotistical runs for the Presidency. Hopefully he'll lose Iowa and NH and throw his weight to whomever gets the nod.

  34. Glad to see Michelle Goldberg once again pull sexism out as an argument just as she did when called for Al Franken to resign before he had a chance to defend himself against the accusations against him. And how dare Sanders run against Clinton in 2016. Of course, no one would criticize Obama for doing the same in 2008. And Warren may be a registered Democrat now but for many years she was a registered Republican and supported Nixon and Reagan when Sanders was out protesting for civil rights and against the war in Vietnam even before he sought elected office. I guess Warren is depending upon the country being what Gore Vidal used to call it: the United States of Amnesia.

  35. Warren was a republican - until she saw the light. And unlike Bloomberg, her policies today are definitely left of center. I trust her more for her conversion. She saw the facts, and changed her mind.

  36. No. She saw the polls and changed her mind.

  37. So Steve, your attack line on EW is that she adjusted her personal politics over the course of her life and career? You know what the French say, only the fools never change opinion. Say what you want but when she did register democrat she was over 10 years away of going into politics. Sounds more like a skill to me: someone born and bred with political ideas and willing to confront her beliefs when facing conflicting facts and life experiences.

  38. That was a well thought out and hopeful column. Like you I believe she is qualified far more than the current President and she learns and doesn't operate from a set of assumptions that are dangerous in the world. Whether she is a better warrior than the others is a real question but I trust her and I believe in her intelligence and ability to change when necessary. She is my candidate at this point and I hope she gets the nomination. Does your husband still believe in the Arts as Evolutionary Cheesecake? I would like to talk to him about that. I like his wife but I've had a problem with that phrase for years in evaluating his work. Sort of like Larry Summers talking about Women and science. REH

  39. The election will be won or lost in the Midwest and Medicare for all won't have traction there. I agree with you that Elizabeth Warren will unify Democratic voters in New York, California, Maryland and Massachusetts. Good luck.

  40. I was very close to contributing to Warren's campaign a six months ago despite the previous spectacle of her allowing Trump's taunts goad to her into getting a DNA test to "confirm" her claim of native American ancestry (as if a smattering of DNA has much to do with identity). No one is perfect, but the mistakes she's continued to make since that time continue to demonstrate her demoralizing tendency to make unforced errors. After delaying her plan for health care insurance, she trucks out a version of Medicare for All that's similar to the one Sanders proposed except that it lacks his honesty about its costs. Then she claimed that she's never found anyone who likes their employer-based insurance. Seriously? Obviously she hasn't bothered to look. Meanwhile, her demand that 150 million Americans give up their employer-based health insurance before seeing its replacement is political suicide. She could have adopted a public option with the promise to make it so appealing that private insurance would have to improve markedly or wither away, but instead she wants to destroy employer-based health care insurance before its replacement has demonstrated its viability. This and other missteps have made me wary rather than enthusiastic about Warren. She's starting to look as politically tone deaf as Hillary. It'll take a better candidate to beat Trump.

  41. Getting more than tired of the Sanders shtick (except for Larry David's version). He proudly proclaims himself to be an "independent" (whatever that means) then parachutes into the DNC every 4 years expecting full support. His refusal to support nominee Clinton in 2016 was unforgivable, and he'll likely pull the same stunt for the nominee this year after he's out. Very phony.

  42. @J Darby "His refusal to support nominee Clinton in 2016"? That's an outright lie! As another commenter notes: "Bernie gave it all he had trying to see that Hillary won; he wore himself out doing so, because he knew, more than most, the danger of a Trump presidency." Why the lie? Perhaps you're projecting. If anything, your refusal to support Sanders if he's the nominee will serve to re-elect Trump.

  43. This has aged well.

  44. She bought a house in foreclosure. When people who got sold a bill of goods by the mortgage scam suffered the pain of losing their homes, losing everything. That’s all I need to know about her. Nope.

  45. @Cate You often make stuff up when trying to make a point? Straight out of Breitbart. At last EW son was not a board member at credit card company (when dad was votingcredit card friendly bills) not a board member at Ukraine’s Gas company, when dad was negotiating Aidan to Ukraine. Joe is totally corrupt and his reputation of a working class bro is a lie and a fiction.

  46. A lot of Democrats are still simmering because they think that Sen. Sanders drew votes away from Hillary Clinton? Please. Sen. Sanders’ (2016) could just as easily complain that Ms. Clinton drew votes away from HIM. It was obvious early on that her private email server (not to mention Benghazi) would become hot button issues, were she to become the Democratic Party’s nominee. Sen. Clinton’s supporters aren’t alone in feeling robbed. Maybe... just *maybe* ...it’s past time to relegate the Electoral College to the midden of history.

  47. Michelle Goldberg is delusional to think Warren is a unifier in the Democratic Party. Moderates see her and Bernie as toxic. Their extreme progressive views turn off independents and moderat Dems both. Michelle’s delusion is that the progressive wing of our party represents the current majority of Democrats. They do not. They have a louder voice, but fail to reflect the mainstream Democratic majority. Her Medicare for all stance is an example of her unpopular positions. The majority of Americans don’t want to trade their current health care for an unknown mandated program. Pushing this concept will be a death knell. I’m afraid Ms Goldbergs ties to Warren disqualify her objectivity. Her MSNBC appearances have a clear partisan bent. She has no credibility.

  48. Yes, yes, yes! Elizabeth Warren is far and away the best candidate. Just listen to her talk for five minutes on any subject, and it’s apparent she knows her stuff. We don’t need any more “word salad” presidents like Trump, which is how Biden would be. Let’s have someone who articulates a clear vision and has the moral compass to put her beliefs into practice. Go, Warren!

  49. Random comments: 1. Bernie gave it all he had trying to see that Hillary won; he wore himself out doing so, because he knew, more than most, the danger of a Trump presidency. Afterwards, Hillary sent Bernie a very warm thank-you note for his efforts. This anti-Bernie theory just won't die, and I'm tired of arguing about it. 2. As a human being, I don't see how you can be very objective regarding the Democratic race if your husband works in one of the campaigns. It's just human nature to want your spouse to succeed. 3. Ugly and sad, but I doubt that a woman can win either. And I say this as a Hillary voter. Most Americans, consciously or unconsciously, see men as leaders and women as "helpmeets," as the Bible refers to married women. St. Paul taught that women should be silent in church. These ancient myths and divine instructions still have a hold on many minds, and other factors are involved, too, for example, just plain old male chauvinism and caveman attitudes.

  50. Michelle has favored Warren from the beginning. I appreciate her disclosures that her husband works for Warren's campaign and that she prefers Warren as president. So what shows Warren to be the one to unite the party? I don't see that at all. If it's not Biden, with his strength with Black voters, then it should be Bernie with his strength with young voters. And with any of the three septuagenarians as the nominee, then there should also be a pledge at the convention not to run for a second term. Some of the current crop of candidates might be named to cabinet positions at the convention to gain more experience governing: Stacey Abhrams--VP Pete Buttigieg--Secretary of Defense Kamala Harris--AG Andrew Yang--Secretary of Commerce Elizabeth Warren--Secretary of Treasury Susan Rice--Secretary of State Castro Bros--HUD and Homeland Security These all should join the nominee in campaiging and building better connections to their respective constituencies. Such a big tent team can revive the coalition that elected Barak Obama twice. That should do it again, and also give the Democrats better candidates in 2024.

  51. Good Idea! Liberals , Moderates and thoughtful Conservatives can be be in shock and horror together when America is handed a second Trump administration .... but it certainly will offer the opportunity for unity!

  52. How is a far Left candidate a unity candidate?

  53. Not when she is advocating seizure of private property.

  54. How does the Sanders campaign pointing out Warren's poll-verified voting demographic amount to "attacking" her? If this little kerfuffle is such a little kerfuffle, in amplifying it Michelle Goldberg only adds to the manufactured hysteria, and just in time for the latest episode of the Gong Show, I mean the "debate." If Warren thinks Bernie is "trashing her" simply by pointing out differences in their bases then I hate to think of a President Warren's epic meltdowns when the Republicans start trashing her for real every two minutes. By playing the faux-feminist victim card here, she actually disempowers other female politicians. Worse still, she is playing the crumpled Hillary card. Remember how well that pitiful ploy worked out to achieve "party unity" once upon a time? Bernie campaigned for her as soon as she was nominated. Then he was blamed for not having the magical Svengali touch to entice his supporters to actually vote for her. The long-awaited smear campaign against Bernie has begun in earnest. The only surprising thing is that Warren has chosen to be an integral part of it.

  55. @Karen Garcia If you’re a Bernie supporter, I don’t blame you for not recognizing that there were ongoing attempts at misrepresenting (lying about) Warren online that have been amplified by Bernie’s campaign and key surrogates. As a Warren supporter, I can say that the campaign felt our frustration that she wasn’t pushing back against those cynical efforts -for which Bernie must be held responsible (as the leader). I’m glad she did. There’s a large portion of his online army that’s harassed supporters (from all campaigns: Beto, Harris, Buttigieg, and Warren) and misled about their candidates under the pretext of “this is a primary”. You can do the research and see why so many young women like Bernie’s message and ideology but have experienced the ‘Bro swarm’ on Twitter. I don’t expect you to see the situation the way Warren supporters do. It’s the Rashomon effect.

  56. You accept, apparently without question, this asinine story of the script given to Sanders’ volunteers to bash candidates, though every Sanders volunteer says they have never seen such a script and there is ample reason to believe that was a concocted story. You take Warren at her word about Sanders saying that a woman can’t be elected, though he reportedly urged her to run in 2015 and campaigned all over the country for Hillary in 2016. You mention in passing that your husband is a consultant to the Warren campaign, as if that is something of minor importance. And the candidate who can unite the Party? We need a candidate who can excite the electorate and who will stand in marked contrast to Trump. Warren has a history of dissembling, she seems to have very limited appeal beyond affluent whites, and she is losing the Democratic primary. In contrast, Sanders has a huge multi-racial working class coalition that has coalesced around his campaign, he inspires young people, the large Hispanic electorate, and independent voters. Just this week he received the endorsement of the Sunrise Movement with 76% of the vote, not surprisingly since he has by far the boldest and most far reaching plans to combat our greatest existential threat. In the past few months Sanders has been going from strength to strength, while Warren’s campaign has been imploding, hence these sad and petty attacks on Sanders in the past 48 hours. If Warren is the nominee, I am convinced she will lose.

  57. Thrilled to hear from you, you brilliant woman! Thank you for your cogent, timely remarks!

  58. It seems that even at this relatively early stage of the game, you are either a trump voter or not a trump voter. Deciding not to vote because neither the republican nor the democratic candidate appeals or throwing your vote to a third party candidate who has no chance of winning — both those actions favor trump being re-elected. I have my favored candidates but will vote for whomever gets the democratic nomination. Every “not a trump voter” needs to do the same. It’s that simple

  59. I feel like the idea of a unity candidate between different ideological factions is something that mostly appeals to the punditry class. Most voters don't vote on ideology. Currently, Bernie and Biden have much more working class support while Warren has a more affluent white coalition. There may be some sexism behind that, but I feel like a lot of it has to do with the way the candidates speak - Bernie has a palpable relatable anger, Biden is the type of guy you could get a beer with, whereas Warren tends to talk in a more cerebal wonky way that maybe struggles to connect. So I tend to think both Bernie and Biden are more electable, even if they exist in different ideological polls.

  60. It's nice to hear someone at the NYT finally say what's obvious: Warren, by any grounded measure of intellect, mettle, achievement, and soul, is the best Democrat we've got. I don't work for the campaign. I'm just an upper middle class coastal liberal who studied and practiced policy. I appreciate any politician with the courage to zero in on the stuff that really matters, and deliver grounded, intelligent, pragmatic solutions and plans. In my lifetime, I haven't seen as serious or rounded a candidate as Warren. That she's, by all appearances, a decent, sweet, empathic soul makes us all the luckier that she's in the race. That she isn't polling double digits ahead of the rest of the field worries me a little--indeed, how is this even a contest--but there's plenty of campaigning left. I fully expect and hope to see her win the nomination.

  61. Agreeing with a previous poster, Warren does seem like the most exciting candidate in terms of what she wants to do. Certainly a much wider spectrum of activity than what Bernie has proposed, not to minimize his health care ideas. Oddest part of today's little press feast - "educated" and "affluent" have truly become insults, even infiltrating the campaigns of educated, affluent people. In their efforts to co-opt the under-educated poor, Republicans have truly taken the Reagan vs. Carter (Well, I didn't go to any fancy college...) patriotism challenge right to America's heart and soul. We now have no respect - or even use, apparently - for educated, successful people in this country. Idiocracy, anyone?

  62. I can’t wait to vote for Bernie Sanders in November. I don’t care if he’s the nominee or I have to write him in. I don’t even care if he were to die before then. There is only ONE politician that has earned my vote and it’s the junior senator from Vermont.

  63. @Benjamin Sevart Mania is unreasonable, whether for Sanders or Trump. Please do not "write him in" if either of your two scenarios play out; he wouldn't appreciate it. Hopefully.

  64. Yes we have you Bernie people to thank for Trump being our dictator and robber of the treasury. I recently considered Bernie but his ego, self Righteousness and utter selfishness lead to trump and our nation no longer a democracy.

  65. Amazing that Sanders talks about Warren not bringing anything to the Democratic Party. He only uses the Democratic Party as a way to power during the Presidential election cycle. The rest of the time he declares himself Independent. I view him as the modern day version of a carpetbagger.

  66. Democrats can elect a woman, but not Elizabeth Warren. A far better bet would be Amy Klobuchar who, unlike Warren and Sanders, a) does not spend most of her time being angry and lecturing her audience, and b) does not carry the baggage of vastly expensive and impractical schemes that have no chance of ever being enacted.

  67. I’m not standing in a selfie line for any of them. Just want a candidate who can beat Trump and do the job well. No need to tear anybody down, and I’ll vote for any of them over Trump. Some fit the bill better than others. Just don’t think it will be Sanders or Warren, or Yang, Steyer, or Gabbard. I expect the field will have narrowed by April 28 when I can vote in the NY primary. If not, get ready for a brokered convention.

  68. @Vicki ; maybe none of them can beat Trump.

  69. 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.

  70. @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.

  71. @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...

  72. Michas, Big government or Bigger Business ( like Enron ?!). I love it when people don’t even critically think to step 2.

  73. 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.....

  74. 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

  75. 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.

  76. 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."

  77. 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.

  78. 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.

  79. @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.

  80. @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.

  81. @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.

  82. A Warren nomination guarantees Trump’s re-election. I am hopeful that voters know better.

  83. You must be talking about Credit Card Joe or Wall Street Pete. The middle centrist lane is a dead end.

  84. 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.

  85. @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.

  86. 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.

  87. @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.

  88. @Fran Not "16m ago"; actually hours ago.

  89. 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?

  90. @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?

  91. 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.

  92. @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.

  93. 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.

  94. @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.

  95. 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!

  96. @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.

  97. A 70 presidential and VP candidate? I’m not sure.

  98. 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.)

  99. 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.

  100. 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.

  101. @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.

  102. 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.

  103. 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.

  104. I’m sitting out the entire nomination process and I’ll get behind whomever the Democrats nominate.

  105. 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.

  106. @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.

  107. @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.

  108. 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.

  109. @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.

  110. @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.

  111. 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.

  112. 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.

  113. 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.

  114. 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.

  115. 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.

  116. @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!"

  117. Just to ask. Isn’t property tax constitutional?

  118. 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

  119. @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.

  120. @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.)

  121. @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

  122. 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.

  123. 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.

  124. Agree and would add who wouldn’t lose Congress in 2022.

  125. @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.

  126. 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.

  127. 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.

  128. 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.

  129. Good analysis. I think she is the only candidate who can unite Democrats and defeat Trump.

  130. 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.

  131. 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.

  132. 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.

  133. As if “no we can’t” is an appealing political message. Amy is just not presidential material. Her mindset is that of a legislator.

  134. 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.

  135. @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.

  136. 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.

  137. @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.

  138. 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.

  139. 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.

  140. @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.

  141. "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.

  142. 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.

  143. 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.

  144. 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.

  145. 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.

  146. @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.

  147. I like Warren. But Unity Candidate she is not. She is missing the moderates.

  148. 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.

  149. 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.

  150. 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.

  151. 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!

  152. @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.

  153. 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.

  154. 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.

  155. She'd be awesome at unifying another losing effort.

  156. 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.

  157. 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.

  158. 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.

  159. 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.

  160. 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.

  161. What you describe makes Warren a great advisor. Not president. Bernie2020

  162. 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.

  163. 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.

  164. 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

  165. 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.

  166. 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.

  167. 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.

  168. @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.)

  169. 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.

  170. 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.

  171. 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.

  172. 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.

  173. 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!

  174. 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.

  175. 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.

  176. 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.

  177. What does polling show about who has the greatest support among younger voters?

  178. Bernie does by a large margin.

  179. 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.

  180. 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.

  181. “Sander’s people”. So typical.

  182. @justice Holmes Well, it's Sanders' people or Trump's followers. Much too alike in rote.

  183. 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.

  184. 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.

  185. 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.

  186. 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.

  187. 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.

  188. 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.

  189. 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.

  190. 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.

  191. 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.

  192. 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.

  193. Great commentary

  194. 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.

  195. Actually, I'M the unity candidate. Medicare for All, people. It's happening—accept it.

  196. 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!

  197. @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!