Elizabeth Warren Is the Democrats’ Unity Candidate

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

Comments: 135

  1. Bennet!!!! Come on people.

  2. Wow, you are honest. But do all the candidates get to have a staffer write and angsty missive on behalf of the person they get to hear about everyday. Honesty doesn't unring the bell.

  3. “Many believe [Sanders] weakened Hillary Clinton by dragging out the primary — at one point even threatening a contested convention — and then only halfheartedly rallying his fans behind her when it was over.” Shame on Michelle for repeating those mainstream-media echo chamber lies. Given what we know about the DNC and HRC’s collusion via the Podesta emails and Donna Brazil, I’m surprised Sanders did 39 campaign appearances in support of HRC: “When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.” https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774 Re: the lie that Sanders didn’t campaign hard for Clinton: “As Sanders finished his speech in Raleigh—“We have to do everything that we can to elect Secretary Clinton!”—Clinton and Pharrell were on their feet, cheering. “Wow!” Clinton said, when she took to the rostrum. “Whew! I gotta say, after hearing from these two extraordinary men, I feel all fired up and ready to go for the next five days!” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/bernie-sanderss-hard-fight-for-hillary-clinton/amp Hillary lost mainly because she couldn’t generate anything near the level of enthusiasm Sanders and Warren ignite daily.

  4. Michele Goldberg’s strategic political commentary confirms the NYT’s sorry state. Goldberg and the NYT are apparently incapable of accurately assessing today’s political realities. If Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie for that matter, are the Democratic nominees for president, the party would suffer epic, historical losses that would make the McGovern and Dukakis nominations look rational in comparison. Trump in a landslide.

  5. Nonsense. Betsy ' Pocahontas' Warren is a 70+ year old white woman Harvard Professor with fake hair color who fell fast and foolishly for Trump's caricatured tweets nicknames and slurs. Warren's eager beaver 'I have a plan' recalls the devastating critique of Hubert Humphrey, that he has more solutions than there are problems. Americans aren't craving a detailed principled policy answer to every microscopic issue facing them. The most loyal and long suffering base of the Democratic Party is black African American. Particularly black African American Protestant women. Why should they be excited and motivated to turn out for Warren? Hillary Clinton won 92% of the black voting minority including 88% of black men and 95% of black women. But turnout was down 11% from peak Obama. Warren has a tenuous relationship with black African America.

  6. Factionalism didn't lose the last election. Let's start with unfair treatment if Sanders by the DNC and media..... Next let's just say that when I heard the slogan "I'm with her" well it doesn't sound that good, and she ran a horrible campaign not visiting whole swaths of the country. Next add her relationship with the big banks. Add in Comey and the hacking and it's not surprising she lost. Let's call it what it was. But let's not dwell on that & get the vote out in 2020. Enough about 2016

  7. Michelle, Please read the polls in the battleground states. Unless we're nominating someone who can win Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc. it's a lost cause. Warren sounds great in the Harvard Yard... Outside that bubble, not so much. Democrats would be wise to end the purity tests, and course-correct away from Sanders and Warren, unless they want a Supreme Court dominated for generations by Trump appointees. Let's get with the program!

  8. Personally, I do not think a NYTimes staff member with a husband working with E. Warren should be writing about E. Warren. And frankly, neither my opinion (a CA resident) nor Ms. Goldberg's opinion matter much. Those in PA, MI, and WI (and maybe OH) will pick the next president. To Ms. Goldberg and all the others (including me) who lust for Trump's defeat, please focus on the only issue: who can carry PA, MI and WI. I will vote in the CA primary but to repeat, IT MEANS NOTHING. Everyday get up and say PA, MI and WI and then repeat before bed. Ask yourself not who would be the best president or who will unite the Democrats. Ask who has the best chance of winning PA, MI and WI. My answer is Joe.

  9. There appear to be two camps of Democrats. First, there are those that believe winning in 2020 requires winning the center, which means nominating a candidate who appeals to moderates, Independents and disenchanted Republicans, while holding steady to core Democratic principals. Second, is the camp that believes focusing on the center is a fools game and the path to victory is "energizing" the progressive base and turning out more minority and young voters. It seems like very few people believe that both can be accomplished under any of the candidates still running. Warren and Sanders more clearly appeal to the progressive left, while Biden and Buttigieg appeal to the center-left. Where the progressives fall down is (1) on the lack of widespread appeal of progressive ideology, in particular in swing states, and (2) the actual value of turning out more Blue voters in already Blue states. I know the progressives here will take umbrage with these points and it's very early to be making predictions, but I can't help but keep going back to the fact that Bernie's support is consistent but he's never polled above 26% support among Democrats, let alone ALL VOTERS, and Warren's campaign is flagging thanks to her gaffes on M4A and campaign donations from corporations. If these two candidates can't beat Joe Biden in the polls then that should tell us all that it isn't quite the time for the Democrats to be pushing a progressive platform to win a national campaign.

  10. This column would have resonated with me a month or two ago but Warren has lost me -- and apparently a lot of other potential voters. She is increasingly taking on the worst characteristics of a modern politician. I've noticed at recent televised town halls and debates she increasingly does not answer the question put in front of her. Everyone does that, but she's doing more than she used to. Not thrilled about her disclosing information that was private and apparently confidential to damage Sanders, either. Perhaps she was reacting to what Ms Goldberg called obnoxious behavior on the part of Sanders' campaign, but justifying obnoxious behavior because the other guy did it is, again, politics as usual. And I'm not sure Hillary was the aggrieved party in the 2016 nomination battle. The DNC clearly favored Clinton (people lost their jobs over the bias). Who knows if Sanders would have beaten Trump? But the perception that the party influenced the fact he didn't get the opportunity to challenge him was responsible, as much as anything, for a less-than-enthusiastic embrace of Clinton by the progressive wing of the party. Sanders is surging among progressives because he just looks like a more authentic representative of those ideals right now. Warren is responsible for that.

  11. This is pretty ironic given that every time somebody disagrees with her during a debate she essentially accuses them of being a Republican. I like a lot of her ideas, but don't see her as unifying the progressive and moderate wings - only Trump can do that.

  12. The Democrats lost in 2016 because Clinton was, at best, the "eat your vegetables" candidate. You remember, those boiled Brussels sprouts that you ate because Mom said they were good for you and you had to, but that didn't mean you liked them at all. Biden is "Eat Your Vegetables" II. Klobuchar thinks she can actually convince you that boiled Brussels sprouts taste good, because that's how they eat them in the Midwest, and because the country can't do any better at Brussels sprouts anyway. Buttigieg at least wants to season the Brussels sprouts and roast them properly -- and add some kale, but somehow the dinner still seems incomplete. Yang wants to give you a thousand bucks so you can buy all the Brussels sprouts you want. But wait -- are robots harvesting all those Brussels sprouts? Sanders says "forget the sprouts! Dessert for everyone!" Warren says "we're a really rich country. We can make the economy work fairly so that everyone can afford to eat a healthy dinner of their choice -- and we'll pay a living wage to the produce pickers and the meat packing plant workers and the dessert bakers and the supermarket employees. And we're going to make sure the FDA does its job so all the food is safe. And we're going to give everyone access to doctors and dietitians to help them choose the right foods for themselves and their families." Let's not make the same mistake as we made in 2016.

  13. Goldberg seems like she’s taking cues from the Trump Administration when she says we need to take her views seriously even though she has a major conflict-of-interest related to those specific views. I thought only swampy politicians talked out of both sides of their mouth, not so-called NYT journalists.

  14. "Free stuff and no way to pay for it" Not only is she a fraud, she's a gutless fraud. (borrowed from The Sting) If Liz is an American Indian, then we're all American Indians. And don't quote the Boston Globe story saying it didn't help her career. She wouldn't have put it on her Bar application nor her faculty directory if she didn't think it would help her career. Kudos to Trump for holding her accountable for not just building her career on a lie but playing identity politics and hurting true native Americans. She wasn't fired because she was pregnant. She quit because she chose to go to law school. Bald face lie. The "Medicaid for All" champion now is going to do it in her third year? This absurd flip-flop happened after she told us how she would finance the free stuff without raising middle class taxes. Her proposals were so devoid of reality the WSJ called it a "fairy tale". Numbers suddenly cut in half, billions taken from the military. Gutless fraud. Then claiming Trump killed Suleimani to divert from the impeachment fraud hurt our national interests. Give credit where it's due-Republicans credited Obama for killing Bin Laden and al-Alawki. The latter was an American citizen and had hurt no one. The Iranians attacked our embassy, killed an American, and injured 40. That's why now! Giving our enemies ammunition to question our motives is dangerous. Taking the insurance I paid for away from me isn't socialist it's Marxist. Flip-flopping is gutless.

  15. I'd like to see a Biden/Warren ticket. Like corporate reality, Uncle Joe could be the front man and Warren could do the work.

  16. Not anymore! Her attempt to smear BERNIE Sanders has dimmed her luster. What was she thinking? Shameful.

  17. Actually, you're very typical of many of the columnists here (i.e. Jill Filipovic) who claim their favorite candidate is the only one who can beat Trump, and give questionable evidence for it. I find your alleged arguments in support of this self-serving and forced. What you are really saying is simply that Elizabeth Warren is the candidate of your preference. Joe Biden supporters can also come up with all the data they want to back up their man as the only one who can win. Geez, even Andrew Yang supporters are doing it. And it's incredible how you mention that "many Democrats" are supposedly still upset for Bernie hurting Hillary Clinton's chances. Those of us with better memories know that it was in fact Sanders backers who were furious when it can became known that the DNC had been favoring her over Clinton all along — which should have been obvious. Sorry, Michelle, but you, like a lot of other talking heads, have a hard time accepting that it is in fact the voters who will decide who will be the candidate, not you.

  18. It's curious that Sanders expects the DNC to enthusiastically support him when he isn't a member of the party and his tepid (at best) support of HRC might have cost her the 2016 election. But this is the same party that endorses Ilhan Omar, who strongly supports sanctions against Israel while arguing that those against Iran are immoral. And we can't deport illegal immigrants (this is more like a war crime than merely immoral), who should get free health insurance, which costs me $10K per year. But they can advance any of their candidates, I don't care, I'l sooner vote for Satan.

  19. what world are you living in lady? She completely alienates the centrist base that is the power source for the Democratic Party. She is an incredibly unrealistic proponent for programs and policies that can never get through whatever Congress is elected!!! So where does that get us???? Perhaps a bit less radical than Bernie but not enough. The far out left Gang of four in the House do NOT represent the center of the party and never will! They just represent their constituents after all! I want to defeat Trump, not rally young left voters who don't even begin to understand what we need to throw the rascal out!!!!!

  20. Rubbish. In the first debate, Trump will address Warren as "Pocahontas" and bring down the house. In more or less the same moment, 90 percent of the electorate will remember that it mistrusts - quite rightly - anyone associated with Harvard. Warren is both preachy and opportunistic - the worst of both worlds.

  21. Warren is the best bet to bring the country together. I don't know why NYT just doesn't endorse her already. She is a transformative figure. What she brings to the table is far more than her healthcare plan. Anyone that thinks the current healthcare system, that focuses on shareholders' profits and executive salaries and bonuses, and not actual, quality care, is in denial or delusional. The system is broken. The country is broken. America needs change and transformation. Warren 2020.

  22. Much on the contrary. Warren is a loose cannon with a hysterical personality, a proven and frequent individual prone to moralizing fabulation about herself, and a panderer to naïve voters by proposing unworkable solutions for the many issues facing us now and in the future. As previous commenter @Katherine said "for those of us living outside the progressive echo chamber...progressives are not unity candidates."

  23. An article about uniting the Democratic Party that does not mention or consider its African-American base is, unfortunately, myopic. I like Warren. I like Michelle Goldberg. But wow.

  24. @Kevin um I mis-parsed that / what is unfortunate is *that the article doesn't recognize* the role of African Americans in the Dem base...

  25. As a moderate independent swing voter, I would not support Warren. she might unify the Democrats, but would get few votes from the unaffiliated. I would support Klobuchar, Pete or, relunctantly, Uncle Joe. Warren is the least appealing candidate to me.

  26. Warren is my favorite by far. But the one thing I don't understand is how (or even why) private insurance should be abolished. In Germany and other similar nations where there is a public healthcare option, there is also private insurance available. We have social security for all, but everyone is welcome to have a Roth or some other retirement account. She should clarify if she means private insurance will be illegal or just unnecessary.

  27. I prefer Warren to Sanders because she is a Democrat and he is an Independent. Like it or not, someone who has worked within the party is different than someone who has worked with the party. They have similar programs. I have always admired the way Elizabeth spoke up to the powers that be, "schooled" them as it were, when they were ripping off the average person. Just got a kick out of watching her do this, well before she became a candidate. I still haven't decided amongst them all, but between the two, I prefer Warren. I do want healthcare for all, but I'm not thrilled with anything that leaves a large number of people worse off. But practically, I'm not sure that version would get through the legislature anyway.

  28. Elizabeth Warren is not my first choice as President. I should like to see her as Secretary of the Treasury. However, I would enthusiastically vote for her if she becomes the Democratic candidate. Her qualifications in every field are unquestionably excellent and I think she would do this country proud as its leader, especially in the job of undoing the damage done by Trump, who shall forever remain an embarrassment on America's historical record.

  29. Elizabeth Warren is the candidate pro the unity of the left.

  30. I’m afraid she will outrage the Anti-Hillary mad hatters in the Center and on the right even more. Until our system collapses and the executive is chosen by a parliament of multiple parties we will never know the will of the people. It’s like with soda. If you have only coke and pepsi, who knew people wanted fruit spritzers.

  31. Do you really want anybody but Trump? Well; here is his achilles heel........ Before Trump was elected, his people held negotiations with an ethnic Russian Mayor of a city in Ukraine adjacent to the Russian border to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, Russia. That was before the election. Was the Tower intended as a safe house in a protected area that is controversial? Is the Ukrainian barrage of Biden claims of wrongdoing intended as a diversion? might be. Why did Trump want to build a Trump Tower in Moscow during his campaign? You know it raises questions. How did Mueller miss this? It's deep.

  32. Senator Warren is not a unifier. She paints all people who work in finance and/or have become wealthy (ethically and through hard work) as greedy criminals whether they follow the rules or not. She is anti-business no matter what business you happen to be a part of. She is definitely not my preferred candidate. In the primary, I will vote for the Democrat who I think will be the best president. That said, I will not have a problem voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is (Warren, garden gnome, hologram, etc.) because four more years of unrestrained lawlessness and additional Supreme Court picks will damage our country for generations.

  33. You are all missing the point: Bernie's turn has come. It's gonna be irresistible. (I like Warren; she would probably be my second choice -- but let's not forget that she was a Republican during the Reagan Era, while Bernie was probably the only American mainstream politician openly defending the Centro-American nations that were then being raped, torn in pieces by the US and its local far-right goons.)

  34. What about black voters? Bernie has made an effort to reach out to the black community and is doing a better job than last time. What is Warren doing?

  35. Some say the world will end in fire; some say in ice. From what I've tasted of desire I hold with those for favor fire; … I know that Hate is also great and ice would suffice. Robert Frost... Misogyny might well suffice.... and besides she's white and not entirely part of the East Coast establishment... so... I adore Warren, signed the petition to put her on the primary ballot.. but am not sure that she can win....so far as the general election... Trump is excellent at the tightrope dance-- but in the end-- we are all responsible for our own actions and should not need bunches of laws and alwyers to make sure we do the right thing. PS. We should have Single payer universal healthcare (and people can buy whatever concierge coverage they desire) -There's a lot of fixing to do after the awful presidents we've had starting with Regan.

  36. Michelle you've been drinking too much of your husband's Warren Kool-Aid and therefore should recuse yourself from commenting on the candidates. Although Bernie denied the Warren backers quote I agree with it. Two things I dislike about Warren are her "Medicare for all" stance and letting herself be drawn in to the whole Native American controversy. Personally I like Kobuchar and Bloomberg, but I will vote for a donkey rather than Trump.

  37. Another great take by Michelle Goldberg who has a wonderful way of troubleshooting her own opinions as she writes. If there were a debate format without the usual conflict-inducing trivial questions by anchors from competing MSM networks, Sen Warren might have a better chance of showing how practical and essential her plans really are instead of having to prove a woman can win against Trump. The "far-left" moniker seen in so many of the NYTimes "Comments" section, which btw is curated by Alphabet- Google machine-learning technology, must refer to liberal social policies and civil rights. As for qualifications, Warren was a full professor at tier schools for decades and if needed could probably raise an army of Ph.Ds like Robert Reich to help assemble plenty of research-based quantitative "proof" for anything she puts forth.

  38. This kind of article is of the same type I read 4 years ago that drove Bernie supporters to vow to never vote for Hillary Clinton. When will we ever learn? We don't need to a hatchet job on Bernie once again, and we certainly don't need a circular firing squad.

  39. What unadulterated "baloney." You want unity, let the people have their choice - and that may well be Bernie Sanders.

  40. None of the Dems can beat Trump. And I’m a Dem.

  41. This kind of article is of the same type I read 4 years ago that drove Bernie supporters to vow to never vote for Hillary Clinton. When will we ever learn. We don't need to a hatchet job on Bernie once again, and we certainly don't need a circular firing squad.

  42. Warren lied about her Indian Heritage. She lied about being fired from her teaching position because she was pregnant. Now she lies about what Bernie said in a private conversation and this lie will lead to both of their downfalls. Joe Biden will be the benefactor and will emerge the victor because of Warren’s miscalculation.

  43. This has only been up for a few hours and it's already aged remarkably poorly. Oops.

  44. At least Goldberg is honest enough to state her bias and conflict of interest, but her oracular tone is most obnoxious. Elizabeth Warren's backers are a direct line to her record. Her leftoid migration and consumer advocacy are of fairly recent vintage, as opposed to Bernie Sanders whose record as an activist for leftist causes goes back to his adolescence. Although she comes from a working class family, Warren became a Republican, a brilliant corporate lawyer and professor of corporate law at Harvard, instructing the next generation of corporate protectors. She amassed considerable wealth advocating on behalf of her clients against individuals, including coal miners, who'd brought suit against them. To her credit, she brought her legal skills to the Democratic Party where she was particularly effective as a consumer advocate. In 2005, she humiliated Joe Biden during a Senate Banking and Finance Committee hearing on bankruptcy reform which he opposed. In the last debate, she and Buttigieg engaged in mutual gotcha confrontation over big bucks fund raising only to be silenced by Sanders whose campaign is solely funded by small donations. Donald Trump will attack her mercilessly, not least for her inconsistency. If Warren couldn't stand-up to a lightweight like Mayor Pete, how does Goldberg think her husband's client will manage against the King of the Pig People?

  45. I'm afraid at the end of the day the Pocahontas label will stickand it should. I am a 2nd generation Texas born Mexican American and Elizabeth had the gall to register as an attorney in Texas as a Native American decades past! She lied at the last debate about the wine caves when she herself had a wine tasting with a free bottle for large donors. There was no $900.00 bottle of wine. And now she is picking on Bernie, whom I volunteered for 8 months the last cycle, but now am supporting Pete and Bloomberg A Bloomberg and Booker ticket would win. Bernie blew his interview with the Times. Booker nailed his. Bernie is old and displayed that in that sad interview.

  46. Bernie Sanders supporters who had donated to Elizabeth Warren are asking for refunds. The hashtag #RefundWarren is trending on Twitter from tweets such as, “When I contributed to Warren, I thought she’d heighten the debate, instead she has cheapened it as much as any candidate. I want my #RefundWarren.” A few days ago, Elizabeth Warren could have been a unity candidate but not anymore. Bernie Sanders publicly said in the 1980s that a woman could be elected president. In 2016 he did 41 events for Hillary Clinton because he believes that. After Elizabeth Warren’s recent lie that he told her a woman can’t win when nobody else was in the room, Warren can’t be a unity candidate.

  47. Saying this over and over again won't make it the case, Michelle. We all know that the NY Times is afraid of Sanders, but if you think, for a moment, that "unity" will come by shutting out the most principled voice of the actual left (as opposed to Warren's watered down, "Middle-Class" pandering smoke and mirrors), there is a rude awakening ahead. Not to mention the fact that Warren is going to get absolutely crushed across the midwestern states. But it is clear that the NY Times Editors would all rather see Donald T. get re-elected, rather than support the only candidate who will actually win the election.

  48. Unity? "Unacceptable" democratic candidates? The election comes down to this for voters- Trump or no Trump. He got 46% last time. Any Dem will beat that (even the last one did, narrowly). Odds are he gets less % this time. Or do you think Dems will vote for him ever? There is no need for a unity (unless some artisans intend to burn the house down, & Bernie has shown he can run without the Establishment very well) candidate, the vote Dem wise is already baked in, period So what sells to not Dems? Well, ersatz Bernie was Trump's above board campaign (we know the under-the-table now), maybe the Real Thing can bring some back. Can Elizabeth do that is the question. & is playing the victim card from a strong suit. What would Trump do with that in the Nov run? (LOSER!) Let the one who generates the most voter energy win. Then get behind "them"...

  49. I will vote for any Democratic nominee. But I hope a woman gets the nomination. Specifically Elizabeth Warren. Why? 1. Americans are tired of self-serving, misogynistic males. A woman of integrity can pull this country together. A woman of integrity NEEDS to pull this country together. 2. Women, it’s your time. If not now, when? Is a woman fundamentally inferior to a man? Is a woman too emotional to make rational decisions? If not, then prove it. Vote for a woman this time. Either Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar. 3. Trump can hurl sexist insults to a man but he cannot, (although he will) hurl them at a woman. If Trump does, it hurts his integrity, his chance to win. It emphasizes his misogyny. 4. Elizabeth Warren has many qualifications to be President. But for me, her integrity stands out. When government workers were laid off last time, (Congress did not fund the budget) Elizabeth Warren was the only notable person who refused a paycheck in sympathy and support of government workers. Elizabeth has integrity. 5. It’s long been proven that Elizabeth Warren fights for the ordinary person, the middle and lower classes. She has empathy for those less fortunate. 6. Elizabeth is smart.

  50. That Ms Warren is the best qualified (knowledgable, by experience) candidate, little doubt remains. But, if her proposals sound too radical, she could easily be seen not as a revolutionary...but as a reactionary, as her strong ideas are 'methodically' shot down by other's selfish bombardments.

  51. So a polarizing candidate will "unify" the Democrats? Will she also unify the country?

  52. Rightly or wrongly Warren will never live down her claim of American Indian heritage and then doubling down on it before finally apologizing for it, and were she to become the candidate we will have Pocahontas coming out of our ears. Throw in her backtracking on Medicare for All (what is her position?) and top it off with her phony beer with her husband moment and we would have a candidate ripe for ridicule and scorn. I write this as one who enthusiastically supported her but no longer do.

  53. If she's the unity candidate then why is she making fraudulent statements about other candidates and turning people off with bogus DNA tests?

  54. Alas, all the hand-wringing and musing about unity is misplaced: The only thing that matters is who can beat Trump, and she can't, regardless of whatever quality she may or may not possess (...people in Iowa stand in line to get their pictures taken with her. Really? And that somehow translates into nationwide Democratic voting in November? Seriously???). Biden is the only candidate still on stage that can possibly beat Trump, especially if Bloomberg throws his support--and millions--behind him. So, stop pitting one against the other in imaginary scenarios in order to fill a column, and focus on winning at all costs. Time to get ruthless and calculating if you really want Dems to win.

  55. She's got my money and my vote and history on her side.

  56. I've been a fan of Ms. Warren since she first stepped into the limelight as a fierce advocate for consumer protections. She has been my favored candidate throughout this early primary season. However, her recent gaffes are discouraging. Her claim that Sen. Sanders said something disparaging in private was as foolish as getting a DNA test and waving it around in an impossible effort to shut up Donald Trump. Given his history it seems unlikely Sanders would have said a woman can't be elected president, but even if he'd said it directly to her face claiming it in public without any corroboration is political malpractice. I was 100% Warren coming into 2020, but I'm wary now. If she continues to be her own worst enemy, I'll be hard pressed to vote for her in the primary.

  57. I was just waiting for TNYT to write a full-on hit piece on Sanders. Here it comes in the camouflage of a shout out for Warren. Disregard that Sanders has the biggest crowds, the largest number of donors, that all of the Democrats' ideas are those first and fiercely promoted by Senator Sanders? If the Dems' establishment had not put its heavy thumb on the 2016 primaries, Sanders would have been the nominee then and we would hot now see Trump destroy democracy wrongheaded stroke by evil action.Sanders has a 4-decade record of standing for all of the people, all of the time. He's got my vote, and it looks like most of America agrees with me.

  58. Her smear on Bernie yesterday is not a good look. More important, her Medicare for All is phony -- a disaster waiting to happen.

  59. Whoever wins; remember the House and Senate. Obama admittedly squandered his time as President when he had both the House and Senate majority. Congress is the power or obstacle behind any President. Without a Democratic Senate, over 200 bills now passed by the active House under Pelosi, to benefit all Americans to live a good daily life....have gone nowhere. We need to live quality daily life instead of being constantly over squeezed to death by power struggles.

  60. I’ve been wanting to support Warren for a long time. I think her heart is in the right place and she has good, if imperfect, plans. With difficulty I tolerated her claim of being indigenous. But this recent move by her to bring up her conversation with Sanders from 2 years ago right before the debate was the last straw. To describe her as someone to unite the country in the midst of this petty feud is mistiming at best, clueless at worst.

  61. I do not “detest” Bernie. In 2016, I was a monthly contributor to his campaign. But then I watched in horror as he continued his 2016 campaign long after it was clear he could not win. His supporters literally shouted over HRC as she was delivering her prime-time convention speech. It was appalling, and I have never seen something like that happen to a man. Democrats cannot let Sanders be a spoiler again. He must be asked at this debate for his reaction to his supporters’ behavior at the 2016 convention - and specifically, what will he do going forward to bring unity to the ticket if he does not win. I personally think a man who honeymooned in the Soviet Union will be easier for Trump to crucify than Warren just because she is a woman.

  62. Given that the general election will be between an authoritarian demagogue and a candidate who supports liberal democracy it is puzzling that there should be any question about the Democratic party uniting for the election. If the Democrats cannot unite against authoritarian rule what can they untie against? The split seems to be between the center-left which is willing to accept corporate contributions given the present rules in politics and the progressives, a populist movement that sees corporate elites controlling politicians and forming an oligarchy. Warren is on the progressive side and is calling for what amounts to class warfare against the rich. I don't she her uniting the party any more than Biden or Sanders. The party doesn't have to unite on a long-term basis but it would make no sense not to untie to defeat Trump and his authoritarian party.

  63. I’m not sure how a candidate who lied about her ethnicity for personal gain could win. Oh and let’s not forget the anti-business, anti-growth, soak the rich, anti-pharma, anti-aviation, open borders, free everything for everyone policies. The stock market is a discounting mechanism. Anyone notice how high it’s going? Precisely because it knows the Democrats have no credible challenger and this country will never elect a socialist.

  64. THANK YOU Michelle- now please take one step further and become the first major columnist to actually begin VETTING Bernie Sanders. What is a more basic character issue than how you supported and prioritized your own child? After fathering a son, Sanders with a prestigious UChicago college degree spent 20 years avoiding holding fulltime jobs. He mocked 9 to 5 workers in his Socialist essays. A VT newspaper article from 1974 shows the mother of his son testifying at a housing hearing about being on WELFARE to support Sanders' five year old son. Why is this never even MENTIONED in the media? What if anything did Saint Bernie contribute financially to the support of his own child? The other candidates fear Sander's vicious sexist army of online trolls. Most voters have no idea Sanders ran for office three times as a candidate for a party that supported abolishing the entire US Military and guarding the country with the Coast Guard. Please Michelle, if Bernie wins Iowa and THEN is vetted, his supporters will howl that Saint Bernie is being undermined. If he wins the nomination, Trump and the GOP will show no mercy. ALL the other major Dem candidates have had their past mistakes and positions raked over the coals. Take off the gloves with this Socialist Sacred Cow before it's too late for Liz Warren, the Democrats and the USA.

  65. Thank you for the closely reasoned article, but, sorry, wrong, wrong, wrong, dead wrong: as in Trump would be a shoe-in against Warren. This lifelong liberal is is touch daily with smart folk from Red States, and trust me, Warren is an absolute Anathema in half the country- at least Sanders get some respect for consistency, and I haven't spoken to anyone I judge as sane who actually hates Joe Biden. And Michelle, please play fair : somehow you back the refuted claim that Sanders - (Sanders! ???)-is bigoted by citing some unnamed female who "share" such doubts. Well if these women really exist, then they share the doubts amongst themselves, NOT with Sanders, unless you want to start calling a man who has had pretty much the same platform for 50+ years a liar. In summary, I think this kind of self-delusion by leftists is going to get us at least another 4 more years of Republican presidency. Get real, and do it fast.

  66. Once again Michelle Goldberg gets it wrong. You can always count on her. Warren is a very talented candidate who has an even larger, Gene Mauch like penchant for blowing it in the pinch. There was her unfortunate decision not to run in 2015 against Hillary. If she had run Bernie never would have and Warren would be President today. Then there was her staggeringly stupid decision to announce her geneticist findings that she probably did have some Native American ancestry and hadn't lied her way into Harvard after all. And now swiftboating Bernie. What a piece of work. Unless the Neera Tanden and the Hillary wing of the party welcome her back into the embrace of "the Democratic Family", Warren has just signed her political suicide note. No one will ever trust her again. Elizabeth Warren is apparently aiming to go down as the Ramsey McDonald of American politics.

  67. Bernie 2020 Vote for a True Progressive!

  68. She may unite the party, but do you think this Harvard/Massachusetts left-wing elitist is going to appeal to Joe and Jane Lunch Bucket in the Midwest. She won't, no matter how many times she talks about her Oklahoma roots and her "janitor" father.

  69. It doesn't matter who the democratic candidate is: ANYONE is better than Trump. Those who would vote for Trump might as well be voting for Vladimir Putin; Trump is just Putin's proxy!

  70. I will never vote for E. Warren. She backed HC, she's late to the all of Sander's ideas! And NOW this sloppy left hook. The DNC blew the last election NOT Sanders.

  71. Sanders's behavior in the 2016 election was one of the factors in trump being elected. So were the loser 3 party candidates. And the fool voters who couldn't see reality. Sanders has some of the blame, but not all of it.

  72. If your husband is consulting for the Warren campaign you should not have written this op-ed. And I detest Sanders, but you should not have written this if your husband is consulting for Warren.

  73. @EO It's an opinion piece. It doesn't matter. Duh.

  74. I don't think "party unity" is a significant issue. Except for the diehard "Bernie bros", I believe the vast majority of commited Democrats share my opinion - in the general election, I'd vote for the rotten carcass of a dead rat before I'd vote for con-man Don. The issue is "electability" - which Democrat will be most attractive to independent voters and those Republicans disgusted by Trump.

  75. A vote for Trump over any Dem candidate is a fool's errand. The rest is academic.

  76. So citing the (lack of) breadth Warren has in support is obnoxious even though it's central to your argument about why she is the strongest candidate?

  77. Bringing together warring Democratic factions is utterly pointless if you can't beat Trump in a general election and Warren cannot beat Trump in a general election! 'United Democrats lose to Trump' - how on earth is that a useful headline?!?

  78. Not this year. Not against this knucklehead in office. Those educated white mom's in Trump country are not going for this woman. We need to win electoral votes, not duplicate Hillary's feel-good victory.

  79. Such hand wringing, and navel gazing. HRC lost in 2016 by 70K votes, despite being massively outspent, if you add in money from the Russkies, Trump and the Kochs. To boot, Trump had Russian intelligence doing his dirty work for him. Yet, the Dems handily won in 2018 on bread and butter issues, not endless government programs with tax increases of 20% for the middle class and 40% for the .001%. Almost every Dem beats Trump in the current polls. Elizabeth is not my first choice, but I'll vote for anyone of them solely on the basis they are not DJT. We are not going to find anyone who is perfect, but we may find someone who is perfectly willing and able to win, if we all pull together. Teamwork is where it's at.

  80. I would love to live in the America that Elizabeth Warren’s policies would produce. Trying to figure out who is most electable probably is a fool’s errand. But... The 2020 electoral college will be decided in the likes of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin. How would she play there? She’s a little bit shrill; she’s *liberal* (“Eww!”); she’s female. Trump and Putin’s trolls may be able to adequately smear her in those swing states. What have we come to?! Don’t get me wrong, if the Democrats nominate Daffy Duck, I will vote for Daffy Duck, who doesn’t even exist but would be preferable to this barbarian. And Joe Biden would be a great disappointment, but consider: his Medicare for All Who Want It is probably all Warren could get past the moderate Democrats; he will get what’s possible in education; he’ll rebuild our alliances. Plus, Donald Trump hates and fears Joe Biden. That’s gotta be a plus! Maybe I’ll vote for the delegate leader before Super Tuesday.

  81. Another day, another column, another Trump-driven misanalysis. Amy Klobuchar is the actual unity candidate -- a woman, a Mid-westerner, a left of center liberal, well-spoken and pleasant. In other words, a formidable opponent against Trump. But for some reason, Michelle Goldberg and all her media friends got it in their heads that Amy was unacceptable and Elizabeth, despite all her shortcomings, was the answer. Michelle and company will regret their approach. On the other hand, it will make for many post-mortem columns when Trump is re-elected.

  82. Could Senator Warren first tell the truth about sending her son to an exclusive private school, as she advocates abolition of school choice initiatives? Honesty would be a good start to unifying the Democrats.

  83. And... scene. If she’s the “unity candidate”, the dems are beyond hopeless. Four more years it is.

  84. The Democrats’ unity candidate should be ..... Donald Trump. Seriously. If Democrats understood what a threat Trump is to everything they value in the USA, they would unite behind any candidate who opposed him. Any candidate. Instead, we’ll have the circular firing squad, to be followed by a pageant of sore losers at the DNC, and a rout on Election Day when write-in candidates siphon votes from the actual nominee. To be followed by the sad spectacle enacted by the Electoral College, where “faithless electors” on the Democratic side will stand on their precious principles and cast away their votes, while Republican electors, like the voters before them, will fall in lockstep behind their lord and master. Prove me wrong. I would be delighted.

  85. An excellent plea for a Biden/Warren ticket.

  86. Both the headline "Unity Candidate" and the sub-head "best hope" are scary because they are so misguided. Ms. Goldberg cannot remember McGovern. That's - a trouncing... by TRUMP - where EW would/will take us. It's NUTS that being "likable" matters as much as it does these days. And Ms. Warren "gets that," hence an even nuttier number of selfies to date. But matter it does, ... and she is another "Hillary," and the first one will be viewed by history as a kind of US Chernobyl. This is not woman-bashing, because I don't think Ms. Klobachar would have (more like would have had, I'm afraid) such a heavy lift. It's easy to miss when the NYT is central to one's intellectual and daily life, ... but our populace has never been more ignorant ... of their own best interest and how our society - political/economic are joined at the hip - works. Sadly, a very educated and bright person will inevitably - Hillary may have been arrogant, but she wasn't stupid - make those people feel pitied.... And then many of them will find their way to the polls & click on Trump. I think we can now give up on "the great unifier" - he or she (in 2020) reminds me of the "great white hopes" of yore. Wishing won't summon one into existence. We're reduced to finding a candidate who won't lead to too many millions of Dems sitting it out ... while prying loose enough 2016 Trump voters to squeak through. It will/would truly be "threading a needle." PB is the party's Tennessee Titans-like possibility.

  87. @EdTow Suggest you open up a bio of Nixon and read about the McGovern loss and refresh your memory. You clearly completely misunderstand what happened back in 1972. 1972 was the year when Nixon “Silent Majority” of winning over the Deep South to the red side post Civil Rights paid off. White anxiety and strong undercurrents on Vietnam. That year, almost any candidate on the dem side would have lost. McGovern was for exiting the war (they all were) You know what would have happened if the dem had selected instead a warmonger? He’d have won zero state.

  88. A vote for Warren is a sure landslide for Trump. No doubt about it.

  89. Yes, yes, yes!!! Her advocacy of Medicare for All (which she's proposed phasing-in with succeeding phases contingent on public acceptance of initial ones) is just common sense. M4A is the most efficient, most economical way to provide health care to all Americans. Yes, it's huge, but it would save tons of money and significantly increase the positive effects achieved by the ACA. Stop already with the scare tactics, "too far left," "take your insurance away" etc., etc. Make it a choice between Warren, an exceptionally capable, decent person with a great track record, and Trump, a willfully ignorant, incompetent con man who ruins everything he touches, and see what happens. Women voters will decide the 2020 election, as I think they did the one in 2018. Trump is toast.

  90. Pretty hypocritical to laud one candidate as a unifier while simultaneously claiming the other one is “detested”...a claim that’s is also true about Warren. As well, it is convenient to claim that Sanders weakened Clinton and forget to mention that the DNC did everything in its power to undermine Sanders, who more than a few Conservatives told me they would have voted for over Trump. Yes, Michelle, you are biased, and you’re also a cheap journalist to choose to ignore so many important facts on your way to a largely loose claim of one candidate being more of a unifier when you know that is not true.

  91. This is a fight between the candidates and the voters. If every person in America who could vote, did vote, no Republican (at least in their current personification), would win.The fight here is between the Democratic nominee and their voters. Who can get the majority of Democratic leaning voters to go to the polls and vote? There were several African American or Hispanic candidates. Now there are none. Why? Because they couldn't garner enough support even among their own race. Why is that? The fact that African Americans overwhelmingly support an old white fuddy duddy like Biden tells you all you need to know. Corey and Kamala must be just shaking their heads, wondering how this all happened. Even when a Black guy was in the White House, Black Americans still were on the back burner at the end of 8 Obama years. They have been on the outs their entire lives. They are used to it. So the only way to get something, anything for their vote is to join'em rather than beat 'em. They are smart enough to figure that one out. All the Republicans have to do is offset the slight increase in enthusiasm by minorities with suppression of an equal number of votes. So, Mike Bloomberg, if what you really want is the Democrat to win, put that billion dollars toward getting people out to vote. They don't need to hear Trump is terrible for them.They aren't stupid. They just need help registering and rides to the polls.

  92. This is the same candidate who insinuated Biden should be running in a different Party, right?

  93. African-American voters? They won't vote for Trump but they may very well stay home.

  94. Maybe. I like Buttigieg, but do not think that this is his time. The more I see/hear Sanders the more I feel I'd have to hold my nose to vote for him in November (and do we really need another angry old white guy in the White House?). That said, I could imagine getting at least comfortable & at peace voting for Warren, though I disagree with her on some things. We'll see.

  95. Stick with Buttigieg!

  96. Hillary lost the election all on her own. Just the fact that she and your column are blaming others is explanation enough. Waah! Waah! Waah! She ran out of steam and refused to imagine Trump beating her; and so failed in the last 2 weeks to barnstorm through the 3 states that cost her the Electoral College and thus that election! Bernie is still an exciting populist who has inspired millions of non-voters like young people and the disaffected to donate, campaign, register, and show-up and vote. Elizabeth is a great policy wonk and wonderful Senator and economic crusader and is most needed in Congress similar to Ted Kennedy. Her just expressed “identity lies” and your column’s crankiness about Bernie is just Hillary 2.0 excuses. Stop trying to create some chimeric candidate via VP packaging who can’t stand on her own. I don’t want a VP that I wouldn’t want now or eventually to be President. Biden will not excite any but the never-Trumpers and the mainstream Democrats. Yes, Elizabeth could create true party unity today by suspending her campaign and throwing her support for Bernie right now. Divide the Progressives and she guarantees a Biden/Klobuchar ticket. The numbers are there right now for Bernie Progressives joined by Warren Progressives. If Warren really had a win or die fire in the belly must win the Presidency at all costs spirit, she would’ve challenged Hillary back in 2016. Now she’s more of a spoiler just learning the political ropes. Who is steadfast from day 1

  97. Anyone who has ever worked in a campaign to make sure that their Candidate is the chosen one, will recognize that there are always one or two people who go "rogue' using their own language or script to denigrate the other candidate. It was not the whole Sander's campaign who was trying to minimize Warren's gender. It was someone who thought they knew better. I have no reason to not believe Sander's explanation and hopefully his Campaign Manager so states today before the debate this evening. I do not think that Warren thought that Sanders was behind this gaffe. She herself said that he was her friend and was disappointed that the campaign, not Sanders, would be doing this. They both have acted admirably toward one another in the debates. I hope this continues tonight. Because if Sanders attacks Elizabeth he will do a great dis-service to both himself and Women in this country. And the same would be true of Warren if she went after Sanders.

  98. Sanders is not a registered Democrat. He is an independent seeking the Democratic nomination for president. A sign of commitment is for him to give up his independent status and become a Democrat And yes, he did hurt Hillary Clinton and he could do it again to Elizabeth Warren. If Sanders does become the candidate I will vote for him and every Democrat should vote for him. This country needs to rid itself of Trump and his gang (administration). Sanders can talk, so let us see him use his rough and tumble style against Trump. Please vote for whoever becomes the Democrats' candidate. We need a united party.

  99. There is a conflict between who would be the best president and who has the best chance of beating Trump.There is another conflict between the qualities needed to win the nomination and the qualities needed to be a good president. Unless we resolve these problems the country is at risk.

  100. Problem is nobody knows nor is really good at predicting electability. It’s a fool’s errand. Much better for everybody to vote that heart (like the republicans did by the way in 2016) and rally behind a nominee. It’s not more complicated.

  101. "A Warren candidacy would not force centrist Democrats to make their peace with socialism nor ask young socialists to jettison their dreams of egalitarian economic transformation." This statement holds no more water than if most of the other candidates were to be nominated. It will be the number one job of the candidate who is the nominee to unite the party; and I see no more ability in Warren to do that than Biden, Buttigieg or Klobachar.

  102. How much did the Warren campaign pay you for this piece? She'll unify the dems -- possible, because the dems have moved so far left. But as for being the best candidate, that's ridiculous. Trump will batter her for her claiming to be Cherokee -- which any thinking person can see was a career move. You don't change your race in your 30's unless you're nutty, and her change of race certainly gassed up her career. Face it, she's unappealing, she's a careerist, and you can call Trump a liar all you want, but Warren's race change was epic.

  103. Unity? Warren? Ridiculous. Her latest sleazy gambit of attacking Sanders with nonsense will disqualify her for many, many thousands of Sanders's voters. She has a long sorry history of creating false narratives that feature her as the underdog, the victim. On the basis of a vague "family story" she allowed herself to be featured as a minority hire as an indigenous person. She claimed she was fired for being pregnant while the record of school board meetings clear show that she resigned after realizing that being a teacher was not the path that called her and, therefore, she would study other discipline than were required to get a permanent credential. There is video of her telling the story THAT way in the intervening years between her resignation and her invention of her "firing". She claimed that her father worked as a janitor. Her brother says that, "Our father never was a janitor." Now she claims that Sanders told her she could not win because she is a woman. Even the New York Times wrote just after that meeting that neither asked for the support of the other nor tried to discourage the other from running. Now, after hurling this terrible smear, she says she is no longer interested in discussing. She lacks integrity. She is an opportunist. And she distorts the truth to undermine someone who has only every treated her with the utmost of respect. The narrative in Goldberg's piece is artfully distorted, in the same way. Sander did not trash her. She did him.

  104. Don't blame Bernie for Hillary's loss! The things that the Russian hack exposed about her were far more damaging than anything Bernie said. Even though the Russian hack was illegal and underhanded, the most damaging things in it were all true. Hillary did not get it. All she had to do to win the Presidency was select Sanders as her running mate, or another Progressive. The moment she selected Kaine as her I said, "She is going to lose." And so did Michael Moore. Hillary's campaign completely missed the point. It was not about deplorables, it WAS about the economy. And the old Clinton/Obama status quo was a loser. And beware, because it still likely is.

  105. If you really think Warren could win, or even is a wise choice, you're dreaming. Warren is ineffective, pedantic, a turn off. She comes off as canned. She picks petty, divisive fights, like this latest silliness with Sanders (I do not support Sanders). She is naïve about how to pull off her many plans. She tells us what we need rather than listening to what we want. Sadly, there are now several instances where her truthfulness is questionable. trump and his cult would make mincemeat of her short shrift. Get serious, Democrats, or you're guaranteeing more trump. Warren is needed in the Senate; but if she heads the ticket, it'd be a McGovern-style wipe out.

  106. @Winsome Your post is offensive, cheap and absurd. If anybody in the bunch has ever been able to pull off something major in DC, it is EW, it’s an agency called the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. And what do you mean by “she comes off as...” This is such a personal sexist insult. If in life you base your own opinion on people based on the color of their skin, their gender, of whatever, it just means you are bigoted. Please going forward stop posting such offensive and gratuitous comments. Go on Fox News instead.

  107. Wow....I'm glad you are a reporter, beacuse you are no political prognosticator (though I always read your column!). Everthing....EVERTHING we have seen in the past month tells us that Elizabeth Warren is the worst option as a candidate. Her numbers have been soft since she released her overly detailed and unworkable plan for Medicare for All, which is increasingly a non-starter for the majority of Democratic voters. [Yes, it is theoretically the best, if not only, way to rachet costs down quickly, but it will also cause the most disruption and no, I do not want to give up my current insurance. A female Harvard academic whose political base is in Massachusets? Wow, what could possibly go wrong? She cannot drawl her way out of being successfully labeled an elitist. Because she is. I think it is possible she would get much less support from women than Hillary, and HRC only got 54 percent despite focusing her campaign on being women's and family issues (and she got only one percent more than Obama). Warren is relentlessly focused on policy when Democratic and voters in general are saying "We do not care about policy." She does not know how to touch people because that is not her training or inclination, and she is not good at faking it On the other hand, she could prove she is a contender by bagging the policy noise and slagging Trump using emasculating language that will drive him insane. I am not joking. That is what we need to hear -- toughness applied. ¡Bring it!

  108. She may be a unity candidate for the Democrats, but she won't win, so pick another candidate who can.

  109. @Jeff. And therein lies the problem. Bloomberg is the only one with a shot and he won’t win the nomination. Warren and the others have no chance against Trump.

  110. 1) Warren starts the day's toxic news cycle by falsely charging Sanders with ordering campaign staff to "trash me." This over a phone bank script stating an easily verified fact about the demographic makeup of her support. (Data from Pew Research: https://tinyurl.com/PewResearchOnDemographics). The script contains not one derogatory word about Warren herself. 2) Warren uses this non-existent attack to dig up the most divisive baggage from 2016: recriminations from some Clinton voters claiming Sanders primary challenge, not the weakness of Hillary's campaign, the media's fixation on her emails or Russia's intervention put Trump in office. 3) Having issued this defamatory charge to cleave progressive America in two, Warren declares herself the unifier of the Democratic Party. This Orwellian two-step is reported with exactly zero objective scrutiny by multiple news media outlets. 4) On the same day, in the same news cycle, Warren accuses Sanders of saying, in a private 1 on 1 meeting in 2018, that he doesn't think a woman can win. As no witness was present, there is only Sanders to refute it. When he does, Warren partisans like Laurence Tribe claim it is "incredible" that Sanders would challenge Warren's account. 5) What's incredible is the idea Warren was acting spontaneously, with no political motive, in this barrage of defamatory attacks. More "incredible" still that anyone would find Warren tearing open old wounds from 2016 TWICE in the same news cycle commendable.

  111. This is the clearest analysis of the past few days’ press events that I’ve read so far.

  112. You are so on the point. Thanks.

  113. Well, this has certainly been a weekend of PR stunts. Must be close to the first primaries/caucuses. The Politico and CNN articles, followed by this NYT OpEd, smack of “hired gun”. Warren staffers are responsible for at least two of the above, and they should be made to realize that they just put a nail in the coffin of a progressive majority at the convention. Should have gone the Robert Reich way, Liz. This is not unity. This is a takedown of Bernie.

  114. Trump should by the Democrats' unity candidate. Anyone who can "unite" enough voters in enough states, including moderate voters in swing states, should be the Democrats' dream candidate. Elizabeth Warren is not that candidate. I will vote for whomever the Democrats nominate, and anyone who truly cares about the future of this country will do the same. But we need those voters who cannot stomach either Trump or Bernie/Warren and, given that choice, will simply not show up. Those are the people we need to "unite." Anyone claiming to be a Democrat who refuses to unite behind whatever candidate is able to win the nomination - whether that be Bernie Sanders or Michael Bloomberg - is advocating suicide.

  115. "Attacking another candidates’ supporters rather than her record is kind of obnoxious, but as far as political combat goes, it was pretty mild." It is factually true that, overall, the Sanders and Warren demographics are different: that Sanders has attracted more lower income and less educated voters who, as a demographic, vote less; and that Warren gets more higher income professionals who vote more. Saying this is not an attack, but must be squarely faced, because it bears on the critical question of Sanders' vs. Warren's electability: Simply, a higher % of higher income Warren supporters will vote for any Democratic candidate; whereas a lower % of lower income Sander supporters will vote for other Democrats - because only Sanders' economic populism (combined w/his 'beer track,' authentic working class character) have politically engaged many of them. A lot of potentially Democratic-voting US citizens stay home - a Sanders candidacy promises to get more of them to the voting booth.

  116. Or at least she was until she decided to go low over the last few days. It was a toss-up (at least in my mind) who to support, and it felt GOOD to have two substantive candidates, but then Senator Sanders began to pull away, so now we’re all about to be deluged by manufactured controversies. Quite predictably, the Warren campaign - in concert with a media (including and maybe especially the Times) itching for controversy - tried to turn a nonstory into a scandal, and attack Sanders with a narrative recycled from Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. After failing to generate too much heat with attacks on Mayor Pete’s “wine cave” fundraiser, Warren’s surrogates were on the lookout for the next big thing to attack, and latched onto a memo that: A) apparently doesn’t emanate from the top of the Sanders campaign; and B) is empirically true - eg: the Warren campaign doesn’t have as much appeal to prospective new Democratic voters. Pile this manufactured “outrage” on top of a couple of other discomforting facts undergirding Senator Warren’s campaign (the new embrace of populism and her Sanders-esque disdain for billionaire funding, check her receipts for her Senate runs) and I’m starting to wonder if it isn’t business as usual with the DNC and Warren working to derail Sanders, again.

  117. There are lots of arguments about who would be the best Democrat but I think that, in the end, it doesn't matter who runs for President...they just have to replace Trump.

  118. I could not disagree with you more. I do not see her “uniting” anyone. She is as divisive in her own way as Trump is in his. We will see how well she does in her home state.

  119. Some strong argument have been voiced by the columnist. Warren does indeed have a lot to recommend her. My biggest fear is that her campaign has had an uneven, somewhat frenetic and disjointed quality. But it does appear the senator realizes it's crunch time, and the moment has come to take on Sanders. In a few weeks we'll know whether it was a Hail Mary pass, or whether in retrospect it was the strategy shift that started her surge.

  120. Warren is for diversity, fairness, green plan. She's a unifier, Brilliant & committed. Has solutions to restore democracy, rule of law and stable economy. She’s POTUS we need at this crucial time in our history. And Yes, She is a WOMAN! The right Woman to lead US.

  121. Democrats always find a way to lose. Warren will not beat Trump. A vote for her is a vote for Trump.

  122. The most important electoral battle of 2020 is for majority control of the Senate -- without which no Democrat president would be able to see any their nominee(s?) for the Supreme Court seated nor have brought for signature any legislation to increase the availability of affordable healthcare, offset global warming, etc.; and with which Trump could be more thoroughly investigated (if not indicted) for his criminal actions, and his policy agenda/judicial nominees could be effectively stifled. As a Senator from a state with a Republican governor, Elizabeth Warren's election to higher office would flip her blue Senate seat red. Supporting her candidacy makes the already daunting goal of a Democrat controlled Senate virtually impossible.

  123. While I agree with the idea that Warren would be a unifying candidate, leading with the notion that Sanders bears sole responsibility for factionalism within the democratic party (and placing the origins of said factionalism in 2016) only widens intra-party divide. Sanders' supporters and a lot of other Americans feel like the process itself is and has been failing to represent them- to ignore this legitimate grievance in the NYT is to exacerbate the problem this article otherwise attempts to solve.

  124. All trump has to do is talk about the $10,000 in tax increases for every man, woman, and child under Medicare for All and he wins the election. Warren badly underestimated how toxic the policy would be and how many Americans are afraid not only of paying a lot more but also losing the employer health insurance they like.

  125. You’re right Michelle. Not necessarily that Warren would be a formidable candidate, but that staying out of the primary process was a solid instinct. There’s lots of confirmation bias here as you’ve certainly found all kinds of reasons for why the person you like the best would be the best, most unifying candidate. I’m not at all sure. I say it about Trump and I’ll say it about everyone else: while it’s certainly better to have large, enthusiastic crowds come out for you, it doesn’t necessarily mean much except that this particular universe of people really like you. It doesn’t tell you all that much about anything else. Warren gets kudos for going to West Virginia early on. I had hoped that Obama would have nominated her to SCOTUS. But I don’t see her as a president, unlike someone like Klobuchar. Fair or not (it’s not), the whole Harvard law professor thing is going to be hard to sell to the nation in a general. Given how the general public feels about liberal professors (I am one), it would only be worse if she were jumping from journalism into national politics. My cousins in Wilkes-Barre would not only not vote for her, they wouldn’t even give her a chance.

  126. I supported Bernie Sanders in 2016 and got all kinds of pushback from the Hillary camp for it, down to a hilariously curmudgeonly Rep. Barney Frank who made the trip from Massachusetts to chew us out on a big screen at our party's convention. This year I'm supporting Elizabeth Warren because she's got the policies of Sanders without the unhelpful talk of revolution and conspiracies and yes, the misogyny of some of Bernie's supporters. That, and I love her story, her intelligence, and her energy. I wouldn't mind nationalizing some industries (cough, health care) or requiring employee representation on corporate boards (the way Warren has proposed) but I think it's unnecessarily alienating when you're pushing basic New Deal liberalism to call it socialism or a revolution.

  127. Warren had the good sense to adopt the Inslee climate plan which has been endorsed by the majority of climate experts. Sanders invented his own climate plan and the experts think it won't get the job done. Enough said.

  128. I think we should listen to Lawrence O'Donnell who voiced something that I had long thought about. Presidents are not a dictator and not capable by fiat of making any substantive change to programs like health insurance. That is Congress's job. They can either sign or veto programs. When asked whether she would sign an incremental program to expand existing Obamacare Warren said yes, she would sign anything that helps even if it is far, far, short of her proposals. Democrats shouldn't get totally hung up on campaign wish lists which everyone knows have little chance of being implemented in the near term, even by a successful candidate.

  129. @Milliband I heard that on O'Donnell's show but that hasn't actually been her campaign message. Other candidates have expressed the same healthcare goals, but recognizing that they have to be pragmatic. Warren has castigated them for their lack of courage. Just another example of her inconsistency. O'Donnell is such a shameless Warren supporter, it's hard to take him seriously.

  130. She was the first and so easily played the 'female' card when she leaked that Bernie said any woman was totally unelectable. You can learn a great deal about a candidate when she clearly demonstrates her core belief in fairness is fungible.

  131. Thank you, Michelle. I have thought this way from the beginning of the campaign. My hope and expectation is that when the time comes, Sanders and Biden will campaign vigorously on Warren's behalf.

  132. The United States has become a third world country and a second-rate democracy because the 0.01%'ers totally own our politicians. The reply from Republican legislators when we ask for infrastructure funding or any other items that benefit our collective society is that we can't afford it, or it will blow up the budget deficit, or it's socialism. Conversely, Republicans have run Iraq and Afghanistan wars on our credit card and given the military a budget that eats-up $0.67 of every dollar we pay in taxes. Trump's new motto "Making Our Country Second-Rate" and it's working.

  133. Agreed. Elizabeth Warren perhaps started out too determined to push Medicare for All (which I support in principle but am concerned about doctor availability, a problem in some places in Canada), but she has recently shown flexibility. She is smart, compassionate, articulate, understands the problems facing a wide swath of Americans, understands the science of global warming, and has the intellectual curiosity to ask the right questions. No candidate is perfect, of course, but Warren strikes me as a fighter who knows when to compromise.

  134. Bernie Sanders helped Trump. Willingly or unwillingly. It doesn't matter. I hope he doesn't do it again.

  135. Shame on NY Times for publishing this blatant copy/paste Warren campaign propaganda