Elizabeth Warren Is the Democrats’ Unity Candidate

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

Comments: 143

  1. I think you need to set aside your own allegiances and get outside the NYC/DC bubble, Michelle. If you travel to the states that will decide the election - the upper Midwest and the coastal states of VA, NC, and Florida - and look at the polls there, it seems pretty clear that Biden is far more likely than either Warren or Sanders to win the general election.

  2. "Many believe he weakened Hillary Clinton by dragging out the primary — at one point even threatening a contested convention — and then only halfheartedly rallying his fans behind her when it was over." Normally I like Ms Goldberg's columns but this is straight out of the east coast elitist echo chamber. Sanders won the national popular vote in the primaries including here in Colorado, not Hillary. The Democratic super delegates and machinations of the Democratic party got Hillary the nomination and undermined the people. I wouldn't blame Sanders if he was angry about that, many of us were angry about that. Many of us who supported Bernie in 2016 believe he could have won over Trump. I had to hold my nose to vote for Hillary because of her baggage and entitlement. She ran a bad campaign. It was not Bernie's fault she didn't win. I don't know what "Resistance" Warren is leading. She does not galvanize young people nationwide the way Bernie does. Now I hear whining from Warren and claims that Bernie told her a woman can't win. Sorry, but that just doesn't resonate. I think that Trump would eat her for lunch.

  3. @Bear Lass I agree. He'd eat her for lunch and have Bailey for dessert -- on the first day of the campaign.

  4. Of course, Warren is a fantastic candidate for the presidency and could bring together the party. She is smart enough to know what to do in all situations. Would she make mistakes? Of course, but certainly, nothing worse than a series of Republican presidents have done. The problem that continues to exist is that the GOP is willing to lie, cheat and steal in order to gain power and the GOP has the Electoral College and voter suppression on its side. Thus, will the public believe the lies and if it doesn't, could Warren garner enough votes to overcome the horrible disadvantage of the Electoral College and voter suppression?

  5. I find Warren condescending, and many of her proposals horrify me -- they are less practical and workable than she makes then sound ("they're wrong" is not a strong debate winner to me). I do not find her at all unifying. Would I vote for her as the nominee? In a hot second -- but I think she would be incapable of enacting most of her agenda.

  6. While they fight it out, take a closer look at Klobuchar. Women will vote for her, much of the the left will vote for "First woman President, those covered by Health Insurance will vote for her, centrists will vote for her, middle America will vote for her and she ain't on Medicare . She took on Kavanaugh and as a prosecutor she knows how to attack Trump. Wake up democrats, she's the real deal!

  7. @mike scott She also knows how to attack her aides and anyone standing near her if she doesn't get dressing on her salad.

  8. I have had mixed feelings about this field of candidates. It is difficult to see which one would be able to pull off the Herculean task of bringing democratic voters together simply because tRump is such a nasty piece of work. He’ll be( already is) in the gutter before the nominee is selected. Biden worries me because of his frequent slip ups and his tongue-tied responses (3rd try for him). He, also, seems to want to turn the clock back a generation or three. Warren and Sanders are vying for the same demographic with nearly identical platforms, but, of the two, Warren seems a little more pragmatic. Her explanation of how to pay for universal healthcare was dodgy, but her admission that it couldn’t be enacted in toto and immediately was refreshing. Klobuchar would be a little on the status quo side, but she is honest and it’s kind of amazing that she has had such staying power. What to think of Buttigieg escapes me and I don’t believe he can garner broad appeal. The rest of the pack are non-starters. IMHO, billionaires should use their money to pay their employees living wages and take less compensation for themselves and shareholders, instead of trying to run the whole show. It speaks volumes about their egos. Whatever happens, the main goal ought to be restoring the presidency to the people and ridding our government of his enablers(Mitch, Lindsey and the rest). Hey, Republicans, you don’t have to fear these men, vote them out of leadership positions!

  9. This is right on. She's the unity candidate without a doubt.

  10. Time to slightly change messaging. I don't care who contributes to a candidate. I care about the character, courage, underlying values and positions. This might surprise you but many weathly care about others, understand the efficiencies needed and in backing Liz want the intelligent balanced approach she would deliver. Many wealthy earned their success contributing to the betterment of society. Liz needs to better communicate that she understands the balance of capitalism and socialism whereas Bernie is a pure socialist and is angry with anyone who opposes him. Liz is a healthy 70 years old which in male life span calculous makes her 55 compared to Bernie and Biden (think dog years). She also looks forward not back. I'd love to have a beer with Joe but he isn't my choice. Liz needs to adopt Pete's position on UH and let a full coverage one payer system compete against a private system. The one payer system will win every time. Insurance frictional cost is unnecessary. Insurance is to protect against risk. The large numbers involved in HC creates the ability to accurately predict costs therefore there is no risk in funding the insured group. That is why virtually every enterprise in the U.S. with over 500 employees "self-insures" completely or at a high level as the frictional cost of insurers profit, administration and loss of decision control are unnecessary and poor business practice.

  11. I have a ton of respect for Elizabeth Warren, but her nomination would be certain doom for the Democrats. The most true thing I've heard about her came from (of all people) Anthony Scaramucci during an appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher. Scaramucci said if Warren gets the nomination, "Trump wins 40 out of 50 states." In response, there was much derisive laughter and dismissiveness (troublingly similar to what anyone got who suggested Hillary wasn't a slam dunk) -- but I haven't forgotten those words for the simple reason that when push comes to shove moderate Democrats will protect their money above all else. For all they say publicly, in the privacy of the voting booth they will swallow their queasiness and pull the lever for Trump. Biden is not an ideal candidate by any stretch, but he is our only hope to beat Trump, and the others need to get behind him and quick. I only wish Barack Obama would get all the Democratic candidates in a room and tell Amy and Pete, their time will come, but it's not now, and tell Bernie and Liz that there's too much at stake and they have to take one for the team.

  12. A comment appears near the top of the Readers Picks from a woman named Elaine. She writes that she will vote for any of the democrats but will pull the lever for Warren with joy. That is what sets Elizabeth Warren apart from all of the rest; she campaigns with such joy. She is "tickled pink" to be with all of the people; proposing a new way forward; taking selfies; answering questions. When she says she has a plan for that she doesn't seem to be patting herself on the back as much as letting US all in on a secret. t rump won in 2016 by the very slimmest of margins and was elected by people who really didn't know who he was. He did not have a track record outside of NYC, apart from the fictional track record on the Apprentice. He now has a track record that includes letting children die in cages, letting Puerto Rico fend for itself, insulting our allies, turning his back on state sponsored murder by Putin and MBS, and failure to revive the coal and manufacturing jobs. That might not move his very base base, but moderates who took a chance in '16 seem plenty turned off by his evil ways. My optimism took a new turn when I read that Bloomberg will spend his money to defeat t rump even if he is not the nominee. Even if that nominee is Sanders or Warren. Let's take back our Country.

  13. Thank you Ms. Goldberg for your well articulated thoughts, and for also being candid about your direct connection to the Warren campaign. That being said, I think it's pretty important that pundits begin to better define the term "unity" in this postmodern-populist era. As an important side note, I have an advanced degree in women and gender studies, and have been thrilled by Warren's rise in the party. In contrast, I held my nose to vote for Hilary Clinton because her brand of "feminism" historically excluded women of color here and abroad. Today, I am outraged about the Politico and CNN smear campaign against Sanders. The man fought for women's and queer rights while Hilary Clinton was rallying for Berry Goldwater, and Elizabeth Warren was a Republican. I understand that people can evolve and change. However, the media has to as well. Yes Sander's aids may have suggested that Warren's base is far whiter, wealthier, and more traditional than his base. That is factually accurate and the data bears that reality. It says a lot when Warren coffee mugs are being sold in the Hamptons last summer, while the disdain for Sander's working class antics are still visceral among the New England elite. Bernie Sanders is being fueled by Gen X, millennial, and Gen Z women of color, school teachers, the women led Sunrise Movement, and the largest nurses union in the nation. The false sexist smears need to stop.

  14. Warren has lost the moderate wing of the party by not accepting those candidates who do not pass her progressive purity tests. She has spent too much time attacking those who have been successful and playing by the books. Certainly some of her ideas are good. She will lose the midwest Trump leaning states and give Trump the election.

  15. Elizabeth Warren has plenty of negatives: - many people still don't trust her from her claim of having American Indian heritage - her recent position to go for Medicare for All in year 3 of her presidency smacks of both opportunism and lack of guts. It also highlights how her numbers just don't add up. At least Bernie is honest that MFA will cost a fortune. - plenty of people simply don't believe that Bernie would say that a woman can't win. - her polling numbers with Black Democrats is not impressive - her claims of not taking corporate money, except when she transferred $20 Million from her Senate campaign which *did* include corporate money, is not endearing to progressives For better or worse, Biden is still the only Democrat who can beat Trump.

  16. Bernie Sanders has spent his whole life as a Prophet in the Wilderness, a status he and (((I))) know something about. Such Prophets are necessary, but also necessarily unpopular, because they spend all their time criticizing everyone. It is therefore necessary to have another figure waiting in the wings, a Joshua, capable of leading the people across the finish line. This person will be unburdened by the animosity that Prophet has built up, and capable of pressing their dream to fruition, in a way the Prophet himself cannot. I dearly hope that Sanders sees this, before it is too late, and not merely steps aside, but steps firmly into Warren's camp, ready to bring the faithful in line beside the masses.

  17. Give me a break! In no way is she the unity candidate. She reminds me of someone fumbling their way to do good. She gives me an unsecure feeling.

  18. "I’ve hesitated to write too much about the Democratic primary because I have a conflict of interest — my husband is consulting for Warren’s campaign." You state you have a legitimate conflict of interest and then go on to speak to Warren's ability to best unite the Democrats. How can one take anything you have written seriously about Warren after you state: "I’ve hesitated to write too much about the Democratic primary because I have a conflict of interest — my husband is consulting for Warren’s campaign." I disagree with your assessment about Warren. I am concerned about your own stated conflict of interest and the violation of it.

  19. "Elizabeth Warren Is the Democrats’ Unity Candidate." Yes. Sanders who might otherwise be a very fine person is an election-time brute. Elitist: that's the same brutal lie he used against Clinton. That's how he irreparably damaged Clinton's candidacy. Sanders should take his hands off Warren now, and call off his thugs. The things that would make Warren a good president are the very same things that would make her our unity candidate. The very things that the Sanders folks are pillorying Warren for are the reasons we should all like her. Yep, she was once a Republican. Yep, she has worked on corporate bankruptcy cases. Yep, she has four Republican veteran brothers. She gets stuff done, e.g., the consumer financial board which helped millions. She has worked on behalf of poor, working class and middle class folk for her entire life.

  20. Too bad the media and DNC have ignored and smeared the candidate who has demonstrated appeal across party lines. I have been following Tulsi Gabbard's campaign with interest and a few month's ago got to one of her town halls where I saw her engage with us, with insight and respect, on the issues facing our country and the world. She's a veteran who has deployed to the Middle East and has experience on the municipal, state and federal levels of government. She is running a true grass roots campaign with contributions from small donors only. Her integrity stands out. Hope people will take another look and consider voting for her. She very well may be the one who has the best chance against Trump.

  21. I do not trust Sanders who IS a DC Beltway insider for DECADES, and who is disingenuously taking advantage of the DNC resources ONLY at election time. He still has not explained how WE ARE GOING TO PAY for his programs. He does NOT have foreign policy experience. He cannot muster non-white support even now. I had experienced first-hand the belligerence from Sander's supporters in 2016. They ere extremely rigid, rude and beyond talking with, quite akin to #KremlinDon base minus the racist extremism and lack of basic education. It was their way or none. So many stayed home rather than voting for HRC, our nominee. These people were horrendously short-sighted and here we are now. I bet they will show the same grudge if Bernie is not chosen. Unlike them, as a Democrat I will support OUR eventual nominee. We cannot afford the minute-by-minute deconstruction of our democracy. Neither can the world.

  22. The most delusional piece I've seen yet on the Democratic field. Big picture, she will not have the support of many who find her views too extreme, and many others who are troubled by her past dishonesty. Small picture, there is no way she will have the support of a majority of that narrow swath of voters in 4 or 5 states who will actually determine the winner of the election. On both counts, Warren is actually the Democrats' lose-lose candidate.

  23. There are no "warring" factions within the Democratic Party. Ms. Goldberg is exaggerating. There is a conservative wing that has dominated the party since Bill Clinton, and an ascendant liberal wing that doesn't want a repeat of the dithering disappointment of Barack Obama. There's certainly tension, but everyone and their third cousin is absolutely agreed on the critical necessity of ridding the country of the orange Chernobyl in the White House. "Unity" doesn't require a specific candidate. Trump provides all the unity Democrats need.

  24. Pres. Elizabeth Warren sounds great she would be a great leader to follow she might be too far to the left but she could be the candidate of our time. Sen. Elizabeth Warren had health before the other candidates running for the Democratic presidential election. She's very much cavalier Elizabeth Warren she was send Pres. Donald Trump packing and heading to jail. All white male dominant society can she peek their interests her road is straight forward about health care, education, world affairs, and taxes. Elizabeth Warren is a lot smarter than President Donald Trump gives himself to be an Ingrid old man a painted face like the Indians of the western plains. Do remember Pres. Donald Trump called Elizabeth Warren names Pocahontas but there's one name for Pres. Donald Trump lying BEAR. This one thing the President Elizabeth Warren can do is unify a nation in crisis.

  25. I am ambivalent about Sentor Warren. She would probably be a good President, but she suffers from Dukakis syndrome. She's too smart and not especially exciting. That said, I would gladly support her and vote for her were she the nominee. Where I really diverge from Ms. Goldberg is her need to resurrect the mythology surrounding Hillary Clinton's loss. It was not Sanders' fault and perpetuating that "falsehood" is counterproductive and just a tad snarky.

  26. It is the fault of his supports who voted for Trump to “bring on the revolution”. How did that work out?

  27. Many people are too lazy to actually listen to what Elizabeth Warren has to say. It's much easier to focus on a solitary pet issue, and yes, even Democrats are guilty of this. As far as health care goes, you may find that more doctors would accept "Medicare for All" than your current plan (as most doctors accept Original Medicare as it now stands) Just think of how healthier society would be with better coverage, and in a time of an epidemic, endemic or pandemic, it could be priceless. Warren can unite us on the issue of tax evasion/avoidance, which costs us hundreds of billions of dollars every year, and this is not even including what we can get from a proper wealth tax. I do hope that Bloomberg doesn't worm his way into the nomination by there being a contested convention, therefore enabling his superdelegates to reign supreme. However, I'd vote for pizza rat over trump at this point.

  28. A vote for this unity candidate will generate a personalized computer thank you from Trump. As great as Warren may be she will not beat Trump. Put aside wishful thinking and vote to end the madness. Climate change can't wait another four years. It's not all about your medical care rather its about the irreparable damage Trump does daily.

  29. I do appreciate your honesty, Michelle, in telling us that your husband is consulting for her campaign. But I'd sooner doubt the integrity of Bret Stephens or Nicholas Kristof than I'd ever doubt yours. You make a solid case here. However, although I once viewed Warren as an acceptable alternative to Bernie, she's taken to outright lying to save her campaign. And it's a sad lie. Who would believe that Bernie Sanders told her a woman could not be elected president? Beyond preposterous. But let's suppose he did. Why would you cry to press about it? It seems a small point, I know, but what you look for is how candidates behave under stress. Her response to the president's Pocahontas nonsense was to get a DNA test. And now we get the equivalent of Harris's "I was that little girl" when Sanders takes the lead.

  30. Are you joking? She actively pushes centrists away from the democratic party.

  31. Lots of commenters on this column note that Bernie Sanders also inspires and brings out his supporters. It may be true that there are a few more die-hard Berners, and they are a bit more passionate than Warren supporters. But most other Democratic primary voters also like Warren. Most of the Democrat voters who don't actively support Bernie dislike him, on a continuum from mild dislike to a hatred that blazes like a million suns.

  32. All any of us can do is vote for the candidate we most like. Trying to crystal ball electability is impossible. What we can do, however, is not be so angry if our favorite loses that we don't get behind the Democratic candidate. Vote for you favor in the primary and then vote for the nominee whoever that is.

  33. Agree, we need the systemic changes she espouses, to get the money and rot out of our government. I believe she will listen to those who choose to keep their personal insurance, even though it's true that many have been denied or basnkript with it.

  34. Here is the problem. Conceding the possibility that all groups on the Democratic Party will or could ever be unified( and I believe its impossible given the all or nothing attitude of some factions), one still must win an election to ever do anything. Therefore, that should be the test- not unification.

  35. It appears not even Donald Trump can unite the Democratic Party. Like the Republican Party, the Democratic Party has an establishment wing and a populous wing. Although, it might me more accurate to say that the Republican Party had an establishment wing and a populous wing because the latter has taken over the party. The populous wing of the Democratic Party is also trying to take over but it appears without success at the moment as the establishment wing continues to have broad support. I would say Warren is part of the populous wing that appeared as a result of the economic crash of 2008 and was manifested as the Occupy Wall Street movement. This movement morphed into the Bernie Sanders campaign in 2016. It has now been divided between Sanders and Warren with Sanders maintaining the purists and Warren being backed by those who are a little more pragmatic. Both wings of the Democratic Party should leave the convention untied for the sake of keeping US democracy intact if nothing else but strong emotions may make that impossible.

  36. Absolutely harebrained. One short statement by Warren indicting Sanders as presumably anti-woman and then an insincere dismissal of it's mention to show that she and Sanders are on the same Progressive page. Clearly a feeble attempt to move herself to the top of the Progressive heap in the midst of slipping poll numbers. Bad politics, both strategically and morally. For a triggered Ms. Goldberg it re-ignites the absurd Bernie Bros lie that was used to put the kibosh on Sanders in 2016 when the DNC had actually fought tirelessly to upend his campaign. Ms. Goldberg might take note that Sanders stayed to the bitter end in that campaign because his ideas were relevant to millions of voters and gave Americans more than a few new ideas by which to navigate the future as well as an actual option to business as usual. I've always been supportive of Elizabeth Warren and up till this moment, she may well have been my choice on the primary ballot. But this ploy (and it is a ploy) to co opt the progressive platform by throwing Sanders under the bus using a private and unwitnessed conversation as evidence of anti-female sentiment is not only contemptible but laughable in the context of Goldberg's dubbing of Warren as a "Unity Candidate".

  37. I think the way to think about this is to recognize that our parties are not monolithic, but are, instead, coalitions or alignments. Consider Israel, for example. In that country, there is a right wing coalition that includes a large mainline Conservative party (Likud), and a number of smaller religious and nationalistic parties. The problem there is that none of the individual parties can win enough votes to govern on its own, and so there is a period of horse trading after each election in order to cobble together the majority coalition needed to govern. Where we differ from Israel is that the political horse trading takes place before the election by way of the primary and caucus system. One way to look at Clinton’s defeat in 2016 is as an inability to build the required governing coalition. She just couldn’t get one or two tiny parties to sign on. There’s nothing wrong with partisan factionalism prior to the convention. I’d argue that having a transparent period of political horse trading is a good thing for democracy. That horse trading serves to moderate extreme candidates who seek leadership as they strive to accommodate the various groups they’ll need to govern if they win. The good thing is that because the coalition building happens before the election, we all have a better idea of what policies we’ll get if our candidates win.

  38. Warren was my first choice, but made me cringe with her "Medicare for all" plan. I thought it was bad politics to take away even bad private insurance policies from people who were used to them and had gotten them through collective bargaining. I thought it was bad policy when Medicare for all who want it would get us to the same place in the end, and would also put the government in competition with private enterprise in a way that would help keep government efficient, and make people aware that government can do it better than private (as it does now with Medicare.) I also thought that even "Medicare for all who want it" will be a very hard lift to get through Congress, so why go so far when other plans could get us universal coverage. Perhaps she hopes that her far reach will bring that compromise, instead of starting off at the compromise. What ever the case, her plan is doubtful to happen so I can overlook it, but I hope she modifies her stand so that others can see the merits of all her other plans, and the good leader she can be.

  39. I wonder why Amy Klobuchar finds no traction in this conversation. She is a very solid pragmatic voice, willing to move toward the progressive wing's goals, if not through their preferred means. I also believe she would eat Trump for breakfast with her quick ability to notice a joke in real time.

  40. Warren is a sure loser. She is anything but a unifier. She is however Michelle Goldberg's preferred candidate so Ms. Goldberg is trying to portray her as such. Why are you doing this now Ms. Goldberg rather than before? That's easy. . .Because she's now losing. . .and because she's even fallen behind Bernie and you can't stand it. Warren's latest false accusations about Bernie reinforce her dishonesty (e. g. her claim to be "American Indian" to further her ambitions). She also has a very shrill (and even angry) demeanor which is a turn-off. This does not work against Trump. Despite his flaws, Biden is the only one who can beat Trump. Stop using your column to promote a candidate who can't win.

  41. The most brilliant sleight of hand of the Warren campaign is that the "I have a plan for that" tag line in reality is "We have a plan for that", and she is more than open about this. She has embraced the best parts of her fellow competitors policy ideas and built upon them by working closely with the stakeholders of all of these policies - time and again, blowing stakeholders away with the comprehensiveness and impact of the plans. It was telling in the last debate when Andrew Yang said that Warren was reading his book, then he offered to gift it to the other candidates. If somebody has ideas about addressing big problems in America, they have Warren's attention. The idea that Warren is a go-it-alone know it all, as some commenters espouse, belies this reality, and, frankly, is part of the sexism that women confront. She's intent on bringing big, structural change to America, and doing so with the best that all of the Democratic Party has to offer. Sounds like unity to me. Warren 46

  42. @MC "She's intent on bringing big, structural change to America". That is just the message that will get Donald Trump elected to a second term.

  43. @MC What does 46 mean? The argument you make for Warren’s willingness to include the ideas of others is eloquent but it is up to her, as the candidate, to demonstrate it - especially to those of us not on board. So far I don’t see it in her incessant vilification of capitalism. She has work to do.

  44. @MC Elizabeth Warren fabulously, famously and foolishly fell for Donald Trump's nicknames and slurs caricature tar trap routine. She will be wearing the ' Scarlet Letter ' P.' While the Democratic Party won 43%, 41% and 42% of the white European American voting majority in 2008, 2012 and 2016 Presidential elections. The notion that the American people are seeking deeply principled policy solutions to every microscopic problem is delusional. Americans aren't motivated by political chameleons and chimeras. Appealing to American voters emotions and hearts is far more important in turning them out on election day than going after their reason and heads. Hope is more promising than fear.

  45. The Democrats I know will vote for anyone who is not Trump. That say they see no real difference between Sanders and Warren and can stand neither. There is a way to glib assumption about a whole lot of Democrats.

  46. "Many believe he weakened Hillary Clinton by dragging out the primary...and then only halfheartedly rallying his fans behind her when it was over." "[H]alfheartedly rally his fans" - no, Sanders himself ragged supporting Clinton, often facing boos and jeers when he addressed audiences made up of his own supporters: Though if - as you write, Ms. Goldberg - former Clinton supporters are still mouthing this lie, it is perhaps not that surprising... [https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/bernie-sanderss-hard-fight-for-hillary-clinton]

  47. So much misguided, uniformed, optimism. I don't argue about Elizabeths outstanding qualities, you are all right about that. But she is not, and will not, be my candidate, when she loses the polls by Nate Cohn etc, as described by David Leonhardt, in the swing states that supported Trump. The polls of the places that should matter to the most of us, in the 6 red swing states that handed Trump the electoral colllege over the extraodinairy Hillary Clinton, when last reviewed, showed that Joe Biden beats Trump there, and Warren doesn't. (David blogs at InconvenientNews.net.)

  48. @Joel Sanders You are using a cheap attack line on EW sending a son into a private school whilst advocating for the abolition of school choice, implying that she is a hypocrite and inauthentic, which is a sexist trope. In the process misrepresenting her position. The record needs to be set straight for everyone. From her website: EW is not advocating for the abolition of any private school, nor is she advocating for parental right to send your kids to a private school. After all, it’s your money, and if you don’t intend to use tax-payer money for your child, who cares? EW plan instead would re-direct public money away from charter schools (nothing to do with private schools) and back into public schools. A lot of people, unions, parents, communities have called for putting an end to charter schools which are draining money away from public schools whilst escaping public over-sight. Some candidates have had a more mixed position, like Booker, but most education specialists have come to see charter schools as a misguided conservative effort. Including the New York Times over a series of articles. Charter schools are really not at all private schools, you see. They really just operate on public money by diverting money away from public schools. So please do not hide behind words. You want to call EW a hypocrite for the sake of it? Go ahead, it’s a free country. Just do not lie and misrepresent her position nor make personal attacks.

  49. The equal rights amendment was first introduced in 1923. It's still not ratified. And we're considering, once again, thinking a woman -- whose only job is to reproduce, nurture and wash up -- might best a man in a presidential election? Not in America, friends. Likely, never in America.

  50. Dear Ms. Goldberg, I usually enjoy reading your columns. That said, I suspect you know full well that copping to a conflict of interest does not make it go away, and waiting until the 5th paragraph to mention it, after you've already started punching, is shady. Picking the most opportune moment to push your husband's client's interests, while simultaneously patting yourself on the back for not having done so until now, is also shady. In fact, this column is full of sneaky (and yes, still conflicted) shade. Sincerely, a Warren (and Sanders) supporter.

  51. I noticed in the pic that accompanies the article, that she has her hand on her chest. What is that? Does it mean something? That seems to be a female thing, like be still my beating heart? Is it a feminist thing? You don't see Bernie doing that, unless he did during the heart attack.

  52. Whatever happens, it is important that Democrats get out and vote, and that the person who gets the most votes during the primary gets to be on the ticket. The Democratic Party must never again put its thumb on the scales as it did in 2015. I remember the sneering contempt of many pundits (and likely Democrats) during the 2015 Republican primary, when a crowded field of 17 GOP candidates took to the stage during a free-for-all debate. It was embarassing. Remember those gales of laughter when Trump emerged victorious after their long, bumpy, ugly primary? The pundits thought that any primary which resulted in a man like Trump must be broken--too populist, too much of a popularity contest, too bereft of ideas, too soundibte oriented, etc. Like many people, I also thought the GOP primary in 2015 was a farcical Gong Show, and although I despise Trump and the many sycophants who now enable him in the GOP (even though many said he was unfit for office in 2015), I will grant one thing to the Republican Party: it let the people vote. And it respected their vote, even though the Party elders hated Trump in 2015.

  53. I’ve hesitated to write too much about the Democratic primary because I have a conflict of interest — my husband is consulting for Warren’s campaign. Then don't.

  54. Totally agree @Don Beene. Shouldn’t have written the column.

  55. I am a Warren supporter because she is the most experienced, competent, intelligent and energetic of the candidates. She is quick and would flatten Trump in a debate. She also is the least narcissistic and I have had enough of that. Bernie is a narcissist. Most of us are to some degree but he radiates the I am right, I am important, I am what you need characteristics . He proved this after losing the nomination last time. He has a minimal legislative accomplishment after so many years in office. Warren has accomplished a great deal in a short amount of time. Imagine Trump and Sanders or Trump and Warren on stage. Who bloviates without details, whom is stable, thoughtful and offers solutions? Sanders will look and sound crazy to conservatives. They will disagree with Warren but, like a good teacher, they will respect her. It may be unfair but Sanders seems too old. I hope for Warren and, yes, some reasonable white guy for the independents.

  56. Warren won't attract enough white, working-class Midwest voters or Black voters. Without those segments the 'unified' Democrats will lose.

  57. @Richard J. Noyes "Warren won't attract enough white, working-class Midwest voters or Black voters. Without those segments the 'unified' Democrats will lose." A ton of evidence, from across the media spectrum, supports your claim - though I hope the point remains moot, since she seems to be falling in the polls now. Indeed, Sanders' is expanding the Democratic base - getting low income citizens who often don't vote, including conservative Democrats and low income Republicans who support M4A. Neither Warren's ideas nor her 'wine track' style will get those crucial voters: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/opinion/elizabeth-warren-massachusetts.html]

  58. @Richard J. Noyes you know whats ironic is that you guys keep saying this but this is exactly why hillary lost, and the line was during that primary was that she was more appealing to black voters. the fact is that after obama a lot of black voters aren't actually voting for any democrat. Clinton lost the general election because of three states that she lost by a combined 7700 votes. In milwaukee alone, 7000 black voters who voted for Obama did not vote.

  59. @Richard J. Noyes How do you reach that conclusion? Warren grew up white, working class (Republican no less) in the Midwest. What make you think she can't attract the very kind of people she came from?

  60. I agree with every word of this. It's obvious to me that Warren would be the best president, and that she would be the best candidate to unify the Democratic party -- and I'm just not sure which Democrat would be the strongest against Trump. Question: Why has the NYT coverage of Warren turned relentlessly negative?

  61. No. She is not.

  62. Really, Michelle. You need to cross the George Washington Bridge more often, and stop breathing your own oxygen. Her defeat at the hands of Trump would be reminiscent of McGovern in 1972. The fact that many in this thread doesn't realize this just shows how out of touch they are with most of the USA. Biden 2020.

  63. If your editorial opinion is that you prefer Warren, that's fine. The notion that she is the only one to save the Dems from factionalism is just downright ridiculous

  64. How can she be a unifyer if she resorts to Trumpian lies to "gain an edge" over her fellow candidate? Her behaviour is one not befitting a Democratic nominee.

  65. Trump is the Democrats unity candidate.

  66. Don't let corporate media play you ... they hate Sanders and will try to destroy him and his progressive policies. The sad fact is that Warren is partnering with corporate media on this ugly tactic to take out Sanders.

  67. She is simply the smartest in the race. That will go a long way to repairing the damage.

  68. I believe Elizabeth Warren can both a unite and win ! If the Democrats truly want to win in 2020, then the winning combination is: Elizabeth Warren for President!  Cory Booker for Vice President in 2020 ! Both are extremely competent and they will carry the women vote, especially those women who didn't vote, or those who voted for Trump, the woman hater and abuser. They will bring out the the African American voters, Latino voters, progressives and the Blue Wave voters! An unbeatable combination !

  69. Two east coast “elites”. I think not.

  70. Get over it Democrats. Can't we learn anything about unity from the obeisance that Trump has wrested from his entire party? Whoever wins the nomination will be the unity candidate. Demonizing each other now will only strengthen Trump in November. If we want to win and salvage any hope for this Republic's future, we had better ENTHUSIASTICALLY support our candidate, whether its Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, or Mickey Mouse. Trump is a cancer and we don't have the luxury of looking for our personal favorite candidate.

  71. At least you admitted your were not objective upfront. A unity candidate is hardly what I would call Warren. Vengeful, lying, say anything to be elected, change your identity(twice) she was Native American and Republican and now she is a socialist; that's her. I don't know, she does not seem like the best pick here. Actually she is most like ummm Trump!!

  72. If the Dems make either Warren or Sanders the Democratic candidate Trump will win. I watch you all the time on MSNBC and read your columns and it is obvious you support Warren. But this year she is a poor choice to defeat Trump. And why should residents of Iowa and New Hampshire be the deciders as to who the Dems should support? JB

  73. It’s clear that Michelle Goldberg desperately wants a woman in the White House, but to characterize Warren as the “Unity” candidate is ludicrous. Warren is as polarizing as they come and it’s one of the reasons she’ll never win a General Election.

  74. I assume that other commenters farther down the list than I've scrolled have made this point, but I'll say that Donald Trump is such a danger to the country and the world that I hope strongly that virtually all Democrats will rally around the nominee, no matter who it is, because everyone's "worst" Democratic candidate still would be a much better president than Donald Trump. I strongly agree with Ms. Goldberg that Senator Warren shows the signs of making the best president of the bunch. And I agree that we can't know who would run most strongly against Donald Trump. Whoever the Democratic candidate is will face a volcanic eruption of lies and slurs. What concerns me now is the way that mainstream news coverage of the campaign seems to have decided that Senator Warren no longer is the flavor of the month and is irrelevant, even though she polls within the same tight group that includes Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, none of whom is treated as irrelevant. Sexism is indeed a big issue, and Elizabeth Warren will need to run an outstanding campaign to overcome it.

  75. Warren committed political suicide when she advocated for a wealth tax. In a country where everyone believes that they are just one smart business move away from making big money, this is a non-starter. Her hostility towards business is another non-starter. So no I don't think she's a uniter, she's head in the clouds idealouge.

  76. We need a centrist, not a redistributionist, candidate.

  77. No, she is not. She doesn't listen, she doesn't wait to hear the full question, she has never run anything but a class room, and she is so abrasive that President Obama did not nominate her to be the head of the department she created. She is just too abrasive. And unlike Tip O'Neil, she doesn't believe all politics is local. Of the three Congressional representative that I am in touch with, she is the least responsive, as in not at all, there is never a live person answering the phone and she is not attentive to any needs west of Worcester. And then there is her willingness to accuse others of what she herself has done. To wit, fundraisers with the well heeled voters - nope, not this politician, not now, not ever. And if, by some chance - a rare one - she does win, the Democrats will lose a Senate seat - Baker is republican and he will fill that seat with a republican. So then she becomes just a sitting duck for incoming criticism because she won't have the votes to accomplish anything. No.

  78. Warren has opined that she doesn't need Congress to forgive student loan debt. Without any debate or discussion, she will sign an EO--presto, the US taxpayer is on the hook for another trillion dollars, and those who actually honored their loan obligations will be hopping mad. She knows how to fix things, you see, knows it all. Just like Trump. Enough of that garbage. I was surprised to hear a decades-long friend, always a progressive Dem, recently express her dislike of Warren. She also mentioned she had been at a dinner party of about a dozen dedicated Dems where shouting broke out about Warren and Sanders, and it wasn't about how wonderful they are. One attendee even threatened to vote FOR Trump if either were the nominee. Doesn't sound like much of a unity candidate. Warren lacks humility, is nauseatingly "woke" (evidently we have to ensure transgendered inmates are segregated in prison), and her endless referencing of the gazillion selfies she has taken, as if that somehow qualifies her for the presidency, is insufferable. IOW, she is unlikable--and unelectable. Usually agree more than disagree with you, Ms. Goldberg, but you are wrong on this one. And with four more disastrous years of Trump as the price, we can't afford to be wrong.

  79. Unfortunately, Michelle, winning the presidency is going to take more than bringing democrats together. It's going to take bringing independents and some moderate republicans into the fold. And this Elizabeth Warren cannot do.

  80. Most moderates would never vote for her or Sanders. Unlike Sanders she also lacks sincerity and authenticity and that’s why her poll numbers have been falling for months.

  81. Warren is proposing to saddle the tax payers with over a trillion dollars of debt by forgiving indebted students fifty thousand dollars, simply because the Department of Education is already authorized todo so. What happened to Congress’ duty to manage the people’s’ money responsibly? Can any politician erase public debt for her political aspirations? Can any political hack occupying the Department of Education seat merely follow this particular politician?

  82. Education loans are govt loans and Betsy DeVos has done nothing, nothing, nothing to help students manage their debt. She needs to be removed and hopefully soon.

  83. Every time I read one of these NYT OpEd pieces, I recall the perhaps apocryphal story of the New York socialite who predicted McGovern’s win over Nixon, because all her friends were voting for him.

  84. @James Anderson Have you heard of this thing called polling?

  85. @James Anderson: Every time? Since 1972? That anecdote must have made a big impression!

  86. So many Republicans are definitely afraid of E. Warren and Bernie. So are corporate and limousine Dems who want to keep their big tax cuts. Change is coming. Get used to it. It is time to share. I have money and I am ready to do it. Go Warren and Bernie.

  87. Personally, I really like Elizabeth Warren and I hope you are right that the Democrats will unite behind her. I have always been a progressive and have rarely gotten to vote for a progressive candidate for president since 1968, my first election. What I worry about with Warren is the touch of prim self righteousness she sometimes seems to project. But I think she is enough of a political pragmatist to be the president for all Americans. And I would really, really, really like to see a woman as gifted as she is elected president of the US. It's time to break the glass ceiling.

  88. Biden is more likely to defeat Trump. The best ticket would be Biden and Klobuchar. In my opinion.

  89. One of the ways to unite the Democratic Party would involve Ms. Warren publicly accusing the candidate Bernie Sanders of believing that a woman cannot be President. That should help party unity.

  90. I agree that she's the closest of anyone to unite the party. It's a real shame Bernie has become so polarizing. He gets voters in the most unlikely places: from our youngest voters as a septuagenarian, from former Trump voters, from non-voters, ... not all of them will port with an endorsement to even Warren let alone Biden or Buttigieg but Bernie's candidacy is moot if the suburbs massively stay home or vote Trump. I wish more people traveled to Europe.

  91. Now it's time for everyone to put on either their 'expert hat' or whip out their crystal ball and make all sorts of predictions, as if they are facts. How about instead, if we all just let the voters decide on who they want as the nominee and then remind voters what we're up against (4 more disastrous years of Trump) and then stress that everyone "Vote Blue No Matter Who", otherwise the alternative could be the end of Our Democracy.

  92. I'm not looking for a unity candidate. I'm looking for the person with the best shot of beating Trump. Right now, that person is Joe Biden. Bernie Sanders also has a better shot of beating Trump than Elizabeth Warren. Elections have consequences. Electoral votes count, not unity.

  93. this should be obvious but this paper has generally held the line that she's more "radical" than Bernie Sanders. Both of whom are closer to FDR than Obama but are in no way "radical". Anyone being honest about Warren & Sanders would have to realize that as presidents they would likely have to deal with a generally moderate, centrist democratic house and a reactionary, preposterous, obstructionist senate so what could they really do? Set the various federal agencies upright again after being run for 4 years by wolves? Yes. Who do you think is detail oriented and big enough wonk to do that extremely well? Elizabeth Warren.

  94. What ever happened to the word "allegedly". There is absolutely no proof that Sanders said anything derogatory to Elizabeth Warren. In fact there are numerous recordings, going back decades, of Sanders stating that a woman could be the president. It's so disappointing seeing the media exploit this blunder and fail to do the due diligence that is expected of journalists.

  95. I wholeheartedly recommend Elizabeth Warren for President. She is a candidate who has learned by doing, that is, learned to campaign successfully from her successes and failures. She learned by doing to advocate progressive and Democratic values first as a Law Professor; then Consumer Financial Protection Bureau head; then MASS Senator. I cannot say the same of most other candidates. She can win. She can be the first woman President. My Presidential candidate choices, Harris, Castro, Booker that I’ve donated to ended their quests. Tho’ Sanders who I donated and respect remains, I’m going with Elizabeth. I’m enthusiastic about that!!

  96. Getting the vote in November out from non voters, infrequent voters, disillusioned voters and voters who are being screened by Block the Vote efforts are well worth the efforts.

  97. Unity is not the answer. We need to win. Warren appeals to high likelihood Dem voters like Michelle Goldberg while Bernie Sanders expands the franchise. So do we want to win or do we want to be "unified"?

  98. This is the voice of sanity. I hope it really gets out there.

  99. Being able to unify the party and its supporters should be one of the most important criterium for all of these candidates. But I question whether Senator Warren’s plans for so many topics are skewed too far to the left, meaning that by unification she needs to be a bit more moderate. Of course it’s important to understand that just because she or any candidate proposes anything, it’s up to the Congress to enact legislation to make it so. Trump found this out the hard way as have other Chief Executives. I hope that one question at tonight’s debate is asked of every participant: “Obviously only one of you will be the candidate selected at the Democratic Convention. If it’s not you, will you wholeheartedly support the party’s nominee to win back the White House beginning in 2021?” Only then will you know that the ultimate candidate will have the ability to pull all of this together; is that for Senator Warren to do or can any of these people (or Mayor Bloomberg) do?

  100. "We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly, "Pogo." I still feel that the biggest problem facing the Democrats are the Democrats themselves. Trying to appeal to the "true believers" of progressive socialism on one end, to moderates who range from liberals to Obama-Trump independents on the other is one thing. Then they have to negotiate the "minefield" between identity politics and economic policies. A party that tries to be "everything for everybody" runs the risk of becoming "nothing for nobody." Against all this is the potential of four more years of Trump, should the Senate not convict him. It's a tall order to fill for whomever emerges at the end of the process. As for Ms. Warren? She may well get the nod, but her ideas (or Sanders too, for that matter) are very far left and will have to fight a hurricane strength onslaught from the Republican side to win in November. The thing the Democrats need to avoid is make 2020 seem like a repeat of 2016. Any candidate who makes Trump, even with all we know about him now, still seem to be the "lesser of the evils" may give it a good shot, but it will be long odds for success.

  101. Elizabeth Warren is my senator, and I have great respect for her. She has run a highly substantive and progressive campaign. That said, I have little confidence that the Democratic Party will unify around her, and I believe she will take the party down to defeat if she is the nominee. The response to the nihilistic Trump presidency is not a rapid swing to the left, but rather a center left return to something approximating normalcy. Her election would not achieve that--and the gridlock would continue.

  102. More than anything, this piece comes across as a classic instance of one's predisposition towards a certain candidate informing the arguments pulled together to make a case for that candidate, rather than dispassionate consideration of various arguments for and against different candidates on the matter at issue preceding the piece's conclusion on it. Warren having the best chance of bringing Democrats together and the unity candidate? Are you kidding? For all her many supporters see in her, others see her manner as personally unbearable and her ideology as problematic at best, together probably making her more vulnerable to Trump’s unique way of going after opponents than anyone.

  103. I've stated before in these comments: in person Warren comes across as warm, likable, caring and intelligent. My dream ticket would be Warren/Buttigieg. Sanders and his 'followers' fill me with anxiety.

  104. I am also a Warren supporter, given money, and speak on her behalf when anyone will listen. And, I also doubt she will have the Democratic nomination, because our country has demonstrated, time and again, it’s not ready to elect a woman president. The problem isn’t the candidate. The problem is the electorate. Women voters are 51% of the voters, yet, they continually support candidates who favor bloated and wasteful military and Pentagon budgets, insufficient public school funding, and kick the can down the road infrastructure policies. Also, support politicians who favor international corporations, and the finance industry to the detriment of the American consumer. They’ll even vote for a sexual predator because they latch on to his clean the swamp lies, when any due diligence demonstrates he is the swamp. Of course all these less than stellar traits are reflected in the men voting, too. And, we have yet to see young voters turn out in large enough numbers to put these hypocrites out of office. Believe me, I’m ready to future not to be dictated by the past. Hope is the engine that fuels our country. I’m just tired of the constant disappointment.

  105. Members of the democratic party are some of the best serfs that we have. They know that the wealthy will be angry with them, and perhaps move to a foreign country leaving us to fend for ourselves, if the democrats nominate someone who might help the people. So, they will nominate a moderate democrat or what can also be known as a republican. Because the last thing the serfs of this country want is an angry overlord class. The people of the US don't deserve better. They are very gullible and believe in all kinds of right wing propaganda. I for one would like the people to get what they deserve and that is more Trump and more Russian/GOP oligarch beat down. I can't wait until the oligarch wars.

  106. Yes, it will unify Democrats because another four years of Trump is our collective nightmare.

  107. Supporters of Ms. Warren recommend we love her because she is the candidate of Big Bold Ideas. One of the BBI's is having the taxpayers pay off the student debt of those making $250,000. Good luck selling that to those many neighbors of mine making less than $30,000. I'll add a third B: Big Bold Bad Ideas.

  108. Elizabeth Warren is a good explainer. And she wants to be transparent. But I feel that she made the same mistake that Hillary did on her campaign-- She has plans for everything, and she expects people to go to her website to read them. Some of the voters may not have regular web-access, and most ( even though college educated ones) have no interest in sitting down on their computer after a long day of work or housework and read policy papers. That leaves the retirees or Boomers who have time on their hands to read about Medicare for all ( But most already qualified for Medicare) So she is left with the Press offering their own 2 minute elevator speeches with critiques on her policy positions. What the Donald did in 2016 and what Joe Biden is doing in some way is to sell himself and what voters think they would stand for.

  109. A 66 yo white male professional, I initially supported Warren because she seemed to share Bernie's good ideas without Bernie's baggage. However, lately I've been thinking Klobuchar might get my vote because she is brilliant, experienced, and has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to win over many voters in red-leaning Midwest districts. Pair her with someone like Booker, Andrew Gillum, or Stacey Abrams as VP to promote black voter turnout and you may have the recipe not only for victory over Trump but maybe even taking back the Senate.

  110. Maybe a different perspective? The argument here is based on a false premise. It is just assumed that "unity" is good. It is, but I'd also argue that it is actually not that important. Winning the Presidency is purely a matter of electoral college math. Unified or divided, Democrats simply will win Oregon. And Republicans simply will win Wyoming. Etc. This is a polarized nation. In fact in probably 80% - 85% of the states everyone already knows who the winner will be. This election, like the last one, will not be someone that "unites" the party at the nation level, but rather will be won by whomever takes that small handful of swing states that are in play. So the real question is - who can win them? And in that respect, I'm not sure Warren is all that strong. The winner will need states in particular in the south east, and northern Midwest. Michigan? Usually solidly Democratic, in fact every election since 1992 - until Trump. She'd need it back. But it has unionization levels above the national norm, many of who's members have really good medical benefits from labor negotiations. Unions play a huge roll in the day to day work of organizing and getting out the vote - and telling them they are going to toss out their hard won benefits and just participate in medicare for all is not exactly the way to enthuse them. Just an example - point is, "who can unite the national party" is an irrelevant question. "Who can win the swing states" is the only question that matters.

  111. I agree. After reading the NY Times interview of Elizabeth Warren, I find it totally obvious that Warren's intellect, determination and experience in Senate battles far outshines the other remaining candidates. Elizabeth Warren has the qualifications we need in the U.S.A. Presidency. She cares more, works more, knows more. She has thought through environmental and health problems and her plans matter. I am comfortable with hope for change with Elizabeth Warren. Our future will be more, better and possible with her at our helm.

  112. Perhaps Ms. Goldberg ought to spend a little time in the Midwest and talk to the folks here. Then, she would understand that the preachy, former Republican (until she was in her forties) would be the worst candidate to win the battleground states.

  113. I supported Warren very early in the campaign. Then she kept saying terrible and horrific things in debates (we don't want PhDs to immigrate to the US? Seriously?) and I realized I cannot vote for her. Now she just talks about being a woman all the time. As someone who was kicked out of womanhood by the LGBT movement, I have no reason to vote for someone just because she identifies as female. Hardly a "unity" candidate.

  114. This op-ed is flawed for one basic reason : It has been well noted that it was Hillary Clinton who tried to scuttle Sanders's campaign right from the start. As publicly alleged by Donna Brazile, the former chair of DNC, Hillary Clinton wanted absolute control over the party's finances and strategy over the entire Democratic campaign events during the last election. So it is actually Hillary Clinton that ensured that the DNC did not act as a neutral arbiter of the Democratic primary, favoring Clinton in its selection of debate times and fundraising. There is no resentment about what Sanders did to Hillary. On the other hand, there was a lot of resentment that Hillary displayed a sense of needless entitlement that kept Sanders's supporters away from her voting for her.

  115. Until reading this column my support of Ms Warren was wavering as electability began to influence my values. The main focus is not to get rid of the plague which has overtaken our politics rather to stand with principles which, save those of Ms Warren and Ms Klobuchar, do not align well with the other candidates. Supporting these women with their feet firmly planted and minds set but open, as opposed to men who still hold the might makes right card in their deck, leave Ms Warren and Ms Klobuchar as the only ticket the Democrats can offer which is not following the same dessicated thought process which has taken the world in which our children and theirs to the edge of destruction. With only one vote and secure moral values, abandoning either betrays both.

  116. With the reputation she has for very liberal approaches to policy, I’d say she would be a long shot to win the election. Her policies might motivate young voters but her dimmed prospects might deflate moderates. Not what I call a unity candidate.

  117. Senator Warren seems to have the best ability to focus on issues and to explain complex ideas in terms that are easily understood. However, every candidate is a better human being than the president. We need to support whomever achieves the Democratic Party nomination.

  118. To call Democrats in any way "socialist" is a spin by the GOP. The Democrats are maybe Socialdemocrats or Liberals but not Socialists. Cuba is socialist and the former USSR was but not the Dems. The GOP managed to entirely change the meaning of those political movements. Warren would be a successful Socialdemocrat if she were a European politician.

  119. I believe Warren actually would make a superb president. We have major social structural problems in this country and she is best suited to take them on. We have not had a more fearless president since FDR - "we have nothig to fear but fear itself." And, indeed, the only thing holding back electability of Warren is the fear of electability. Fear not; just vote for her.

  120. How could the candidate who has said that more than half the party should leave it and become Republicans because they don't agree with her be the unifying candidate? Perhaps it should be a candidate who has actually tried to, you know, unify people.

  121. Reading over some of these comments, I am reminded how the centrist or right of center Democrats always feel that they are the ones with the moral high ground, while criticizing more progressive voters as demanding "a purity test" and "petulant." Their opinion of the more progressive candidates themselves is that they are far too extreme, hated by everyone they know and aren't even Democrats. They then end their comments by saying that if someone like Bernie is the nominee, they will just stay home. Funny how they don't see the hypocrisy or criticizing Sanders or Warren voters for wanting their candidate to have big bold ideas, yet then take a petulant stand if that person is the nominee. Also just because these rightwing Centrist may know only like minded people, who also hate Bernie, doesn't mean that everyone does. It just means that in that person's small circle, this is the case. Yet they'll never admit that because they think only they are right,an attitude they accuse Sanders' supporters of having. Finally they rant that Sanders isn't even a Democrat, although he caucuses with the Democrats and votes with the Democrats, except when he wants more progressive bills passed. Isn't Bernie, with his ideals, more like FDR, than Manchin or West Virginia, who often votes against the environment and with Trump or the Congressman from Chicago, who is against any and all abortions, and votes accordingly. What makes them more of a Democrat than Sanders?

  122. @Miriam A perfect summary of the views of the Henry Clay Democrats - those who would rather be right than be president (or elect one).

  123. She is indeed. Just like McGovern and Humphrey and Dukakis. All three untied the Democratic party’s various factions behind a single demonstrably unelectable candidate. Here we go again.

  124. While I prefer Warren, I have come to realize she would be crushed in the general election. Yes, she would have an absolute lock on the white, urban, Volvo with a Dartmouth sticker driving, NPR-listening, earnestly ideological liberal, but not too many others. As Bernie's script correctly states, she's "bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.” Bernie, on the other hand, is a progressive who could add many disaffected, non-ideological, un-woke, middle class types, those who don't study blue collar workers, but are blue collar workers. He would still have a steep hill to climb, but not as steep as Warren's.

  125. Have you even looked at Pete Buttigieg? His entire campaign has been built on unity, and he practices what he preaches. Pete never instigates attacks on his competitors, never. But he will forcefully defend himself from false allegations hurled at him by them, including Warren’s hypocritical and dishonest attacks about his fundraising, the same fundraising tactics she used for her Senate own campaign. Millions of dollars from that campaign have funded her current presidential run. And you believe she’s a uniter? I think not. If she’s nominated, I will vote for her. Of course. But my expectation for the future under her presidency would be more division. Pete is rebuilding our big tent every day of his campaign, welcoming everyone to the table and even reaching out to his detractors to have respectful discussions. His calm demeanor, empathy, and commitment to raising up everyone are what’s needed to unify this country in the post-Trump era.

  126. She has a platform, and also solid and detailed plans to achieve her goals. Most politicians have just one or the other

  127. Except, Bernie is not a democrat, Elizabeth is.

  128. Warren, my Senator, has a reputation that is well deserved for being divisive and self-serving. Whether it is creating the fiction of her identity up until she was 38 years old, or failing to reveal her consulting ties to vulture law firms and large corporations. She is a fraud. As a liberal Democrat I would write in the name of my dog before I would vote for her. And, no I do not believe that four more years of Trumpian crazy will destroy America. However, bringing 40-50 trillion dollars of debt down on the heads of the next three or four generations would.

  129. The writer is out of touch. Warren nomination would assure 4 more years of Trump. Get out of NYC, stop talking to Iowa democratic caucus participants or pampered NH voters; go to Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania (or anywhere in the Midwest) and talk to people who voted for Obama and Trump. I can assure you none of them are interested in President Warren.

  130. @Joe - you nailed that right on the head!

  131. The only thing Warren will unite is Trump's reelection chances. Win the White House. That's the Big Plan & Idea! But not with Elizabeth Warren.

  132. I don't think Sanders' script was an attack on Warren's supporters. It was a claim about the width of her support. The question to consider is whether it was accurate. The script I saw also called for giving reasons against any other candidate that a voter was backing. None of them especially derogatory. It's a contest. Any candidate needs to explain why they're the best choice but it's completely legitimate to criticize others. Certain kinds of criticism could be considered off-limits. I have yet to see any such from any of the Democratic candidates. Trump won't be using kid gloves. Nothing wrong with our candidates mixing it up a bit as long as there are no low blows.

  133. America, where the son of a rich real estate mogul is seen as "the hope of the working man" and the daughter of a middle class family from Oklahoma is, well, not. Where a man who declared bankruptcy multiple times and stiffed his contractors is a "great businessman" and the woman who created the Consumer Financial Protection Agency is viewed as not understanding finance. Where the man whose administration is not defending the ACA is going to provide healthcare for everyone with no plan, and the woman with a detailed plan is ripped apart over it. How did we get here?

  134. Misogynism. And a press corps that beats stupid details to death, ignores the big picture and continues to claim false equivalency (as in, both parties/candidates do it — wrong!).

  135. I think Warren would make a great president. However, I fear that she won't be able to beat Trump. From everything I know, Biden stands the best shot at beating trump. Therefore, even though I might prefer a President Warren to a President Biden, I cannot support her for the nomination.

  136. I think Warren can unify people across the heartland by concentrating on dissolving any learning blockages that they may have regarding the fine details of tax avoidance and income inequality. She is the candidate to do this---she is fiery about it and this should be her go-to issue. She should not worry about talking down to people. She should pointedly speak in details and not grey stumps. I think people are worried about "social programs" and their pockets, not realizing that this country loses hundreds of billions of dollars a year in tax avoidance. If they realized that the fine line from pain to comfort can be crossed by these coffers, and that it has nothing to do with "welfare", then maybe, just maybe they can tell 2 friends, and then they can tell 2 friends all about shell companies, tax havens and the egregious downward spiral of the wealthy's tax responsibility. I have been lower income all my life, and although I have resided in cites, I am red hot angry at these issue and I think that others like me should be too, no matter where they live. After all it has mainly been GOP policy of quick wealth that were the reason for the death of many of their jobs.

  137. I don't trust her. She's already backtracked on Medicare for All and the whole "native American" debacle was disingenuous. It's clear she did it to gain a foot up. The over-earnestness of her manner strikes me as false. I'll take Bernie any day--he truly believes in what he says and doesn't back down.

  138. Well argued, and you have me convinced 100%.

  139. This outrageous example of poor journalism on CNN's part by publishing an "annonymous account'' of an unverified private conversation effectively translates them into a device for the Warren campaign, and given Sanders record, just resonates loud and clear as political smear job loud and clear. Itemphasizes what is so missing in the 3rd estate today when the become willing pawns of propaganda instead of attempting to sift out the truth..

  140. All the candidates need to start attacking Trump more and each other less.

  141. The folks who are comparing Warren to McGovern are OLD! 1972 ain't 2020. Everything has changed!

  142. Sanders is not even a Democrat. He uses the party for his own ends.

  143. Actually, with Medicare for All, it would be Pete who would be the Party unifier, not the scratchy Ms. Warren.