When we think "President", a large proportion of Americans want the gravitas of a literally "big" man with a deep voice and an authoritative demeanor. Women, by their smaller size and higher voice are handicapped at the starting gate. It's not prejudice per se, it's intrinsic differences in how the sexes are perceived. Fillies are almost never raced against stallions.
1
People were walking out of Warren's speech because you don't have to stay there to know what she is going to say. She has stock statements and tweets, etc., them out irrespective of what is going on on a given day. This makes her sound phony. She was my second choice until she lied about Sanders.
2
Ohh...not looking so great for Liz tonight. A solid 4th ain't gonna do it Senator.
A hat tip to Yang and Bennett for knowing when to get out.
Thanks for adding your voice and views guys.
Hey, anyone seen Joe around? You mean he left the state while voting was still going on?! Not a great look sir.
Bernie's got this one.
4
Warren is so excellent. Gooooooooooo, Liz!
8
EW always looks/talks so angry....
1
I went to see all of the major candidates speak in NH in 2016, and I was at the Warren event In Concord discussed here. I noticed a few people leave, however the crowd had been standing in line for nearly two hours, and standing during the event for another hour-something...the room was hot and stuffy my legs were sore, but Warren’s speech seemed to have the room engaged.
In 2016 I saw Trump speak (an incoherent ramble during which he repeated the same story twice) and half the crowd left before he was finished. Clearly this did not impact his long term success.
5
As a former Elizabeth Warren fan, I understand the appeal of her candidacy. She's progressive, she's a woman, she knows how to rally a crowd, but her campaign has made some serious mistakes along the way. Her unveiling of her Medicare for All plan was completely botched and she alienated progressives and moderates alike. She boomed in the summer but has been unable to retain that support as progressives turned to Bernie.
Though Warren has some powerful surrogates, namely Ayanna Pressley and Julian Castro, she lacks a defined lane in the party. The progressive lane is dominated by Bernie and his army of progressive surrogates and the more moderate side of the party is dominated by the "Mod Squad", Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Michael Bloomberg, and Joe Biden. Because of this, she is constantly fighting all the other candidates for voters and it is not working out for her.
Recently, Warren has been heavily invoking an argument that she is the most electable candidate, citing the fact that she flipped a Republican-held Senate seat. Well, what she fails to mention is the fact that it's the seat of Massachusetts, one of the most progressive states in the country. It makes sense that a Democrat holds that seat. If a Republican won it, it would be as shocking as Doug Jones in Alabama.
There is no clear path for Warren moving forward and the only way that she could get the nomination is through a brokered convention, but even Michael Bloomberg has her beat in that department.
4
The whole Medicare for All thing was a fiasco for her, and may well be an albatross around the eventual Democratic nominee. This should never have been a top political issue given what else is going on with Trump, but she single handedly made it so, with disastrous results.
3
With headlines like this, who needs enemies? Click-bait journalism like this is irresponsibly influential. The gray lady’s endorsement weren’t worth much, apparently.
7
Matt, you’ve captured this talk show, but the Apprentice may win if we do not get real. I know Liz. She’s frenetic, she’s foolish in her loathing of those successful and self made, she is Bernie Lite. We must worship those that make it and learn from them, not hate them. And they must reach down to lift us up. There is plenty of room in the boat. Bernie will destroy us. Pete and Chasten will destroy us. Trump will destroy us...
I love Michael Farrand Bennet... but he’s not coming through.
Amy Jean Klobuchar has the beat, and Joe Biden does not. Sanders will not convince America to ignore her.
Mike Bloomberg will help us all, and he will help the survivors. He will help us most if we help him.
As I see it, it’s Mike and Amy, I like Mike, and I love Amy.
Confession: I hired Mike when he had nothing. He has not forgotten those days. And I started thinking about Amy when Fritz Mondale raised her name. She is a winner...
Mike and Amy can bring us back to sanity... She will make a great president... and Mike will start them off with a smile.
I know Mike. I knew him over 50 years ago. He was a perfect gentleman learning the ways of those that were not.
Amy is the Lady we need in the White House... and Mike can put them there.
Let’s opt for quality... and watch Mike help those of either party return to civility, conscience, clarity, and class.
3
@S B Lewis A
FINALLY
you are right on!!!
One keeps wondering whether the feminist vote will at some point coalesce around a candidate. So far it has been muted as an organized cohesive force. As has the African American vote. Biden seems more a placeholder than a passion. Everybody is waiting for a blinding flash of insight to illuminate the path.
Warren's early success with her "plan for everything" approach seems to have made her a bit reckless and now she is paying a price. She can mount a comeback but it will require her to make an adjustment.
The problem with proposing an over the top "plan for everything" to be done all at once is that it fails the credibility test. Warren needs to prioritize and create a realistic road map showing how it all can play out and actually get done.
The other thing that would help Warren is some variety in her campaigning style. Intense and frantic should be reserved for an occasional point of emphasis, not constitute the daily fare. A little balance in her public moods would be refreshing. It all seems too serious.
1
Mr. Flegenheimer, there's a tone of condescension in this article that is not a good look for you or for the New York Times. Elizabeth Warren is a rock star--brilliant, insanely hard working, empathetic, competent, tested, effective, inspiring, kind, tough, thorough, collegial, and urgently needed to repair not just the damage the Republican Party has done to, well everything under Trump--the environment, asylum seekers at the border, citizens of color, women, the LGBTQ community, our health care system, our standing the world, our revenues gutted by the tax scam--but nearly five decades of rising inequality. She has the capacity to unite the two factions of the party, and she is surrounded by gifted, talented people. If elected, she will be the best president of my lifetime--the FDR of the 21st century. She has my vote, and your article only makes me want to fight harder for her. I hate to say it, but I just have to wonder if this article is your protest vote for the Times' endorsement of Warren last month.
11
Absolutely, it's a combination of the misogyny and her competence and willingness to pay attention to the devil in the details that is against her unfortunately.
She's too good for most of the voters. They don't have the capacity to appreciate her.
14
Warren has never been my choice because of her unattainable goals.
However, her understanding of the factors which have tipped the playing field away from the average American is vastly deeper than that of any other candidate.
Given she will likely not be the candidate, it would still be a shame if she were not to be listened to carefully by the next (Democratic) President.
3
Unfortunately, the winning candidate will be whoever is best at blindfolding the horse, leading it out of the burning barn, and blocking it from returning to its familiar stall. Having rational policies for exiting flaming buildings probably won't persuade the horse. I'd like to think voters were smarter than a panicked horse, but voters elected Trump.
7
The letter sent from the Warren campaign to supporters today uses real metrics that paint a different picture than the anecdotal conventional wisdom in this sad article. Flegenheimer implies a lack of excitement at a rally, but in the last several days the Warren volunteer operation launched a massive canvass that far exceeded their goals. Through Sunday night, more than 3500 volunteers participated and had already hit 138 percent of the New Hampshire GOTV goals; a short term campaign fundraising goal of $2 million was exceeded early, and a new goal of $4 million was set. This campaign will be long with many ups and downs. Iowa had four different polling leaders in just as many months. Stop calling people out as if Iowa and New Hampshire decide all - history shows they don't. It's just lazy journalism!
11
‘Someone in a passing car recognized Ms. Warren as she stepped toward the next address. He lowered the window to announce himself:
“Go Bernieeeeeeeeeee.” ‘
The rude factor of Bernie Bros strikes again. No matter who I support, I cannot imagine yelling that out of a car at an earnest, hard-working 70-year-old person. In what world is that acceptable? All of the candidates have had to experience such levels of disrespect from Bernie followers. Just mortifying and sad. Have some civility.
11
Reminds me of passing a house on a busy road in Chappaqua, NY that is the only way to get to the town’s polling place and just a couple of blocks from it.
On the front lawn, facing the road, was a big Trump sign urging, “Lock Her Up!”
Bernie and his Bros may be the mirror image of Trump and his mongers, but that’s no guarantee that they’ll match them when it comes to November votes.
7
"Buttigieg suggested on Monday that nominating Mr. Sanders would “risk alienating Americans at this critical moment'....Klobuchar...insist[s] a “socialist” like Mr. Sanders should not lead the ticket."
Walp...'least right liberal Dem's exhibit "unity" on one thing!
2
Warren can overcome silly articles like this. She’s the best overall candidate in the field. The media should note this candidate is closer to our national zeitgeist of wanting affordable healthcare, affordable college for our kids, a general stronger social safety net for our non wealthy Americans. We’ve had enough weak puppets controlled by ethical idiots such Koch, Adelson, Murdoch, et. al. It’s time to clean up their messes, to bring ourselves together and truly improve the lives of the 99.99% of America.
13
Warren and Sanders, Progressive Policy-Twins, are innovators in campaigning and Funds generation! But they are obliged to function in a Party Establishment which considers one progressive, one too many! They should explore ways to coalesce into a Single campaign! Else, they may both lose! And their cause and the Party!
The “Moderates”, including Mayor Blumburg, may arrive at a similar understanding. Democrats’ final nominee, ‘Policy Platform’ and campaign must specifically and in detail address the Voters’ financial, health care and other needs/anxieties! The difference between President Trump and the Democratic-Progressive agenda must be delineated.
1
So many comments dismiss Warren's fall in the polls due to sexism. Certainly, women have challenges the male candidates do not, but one should consider that maybe, just maybe, her policies do not sit so well with some of us.
What is more frustrating about this reporting is that it completely ignores who I think is THE most electable candidate: Amy Klobuchar.
Stop acting like Warren is the only woman in the race. We have an incredibly experienced, intelligent candidate in Klobuchar who can win in the must-win states.
6
Both the Times and The Washington Post have turned on Warren. When they have a choice of photo, they put the least attractive in with great photos of the the others. They have singled her out for negative commentary that is not only undeserved, but often stretches the truth. Maybe it is because she is a woman who threatens the profits of their ventures; maybe because they think that's what the reader wants, but his is just another example.
10
Warren's role is to split the progressive vote so the superdelegates and DNC can back-room their preferred candidate in the second round.
DNC’s endgame here is pitting racist NY Republican billionaire Bloomberg against racist NY Republican billionaire Trump.
Warren is a Trojan Horse spoiler candidate, dispatched to divide the progressive base at the BEHEST of the Wall-Street and MIC backed Democratic Establishment.
She is another "Hope and Change" candidate - i.e. she's selling a false bill of goods for the election season, and as soon as the election's over, she'll go right back to her lifelong record, which is what again? A Republican for most of her life? A slap-on-the-wrist regulator of Wall Street? A 'pragmatic' servant of the status quo?
Warren has a history of promising one thing and doing another. Look at her promises on taking Super PAC money.
Obama had some great plans too - the public option, the Employee Free Choice Act, ending "stupid wars" like Iraq, closing Guantanamo, putting on his walking shoes to support teachers,...
How many of those actually happened?
How many of Warren's plans do you think will actually happen if she gets elected?
After Obama's massive bait-and-switch another go with the same thing makes no sense at all. Elizabeth Warren simply cannot be trusted.
Like Obama she’ll make sure the oligarchs get theirs.
Her slanderous plan to paint Sanders as sexist backfired monumentally, resulting in her slide in popularity.
The true Left got her number
4
The NYT comment picks mostly echo media analysts trying to explain how Warren isn't winning the nomination 'game'. I for one, have had enough of pundits.
Election 2020 is no game, and it's worthwhile keeping that in mind.
Cast assumptions aside about why a/this/any woman isn't 'electable'. Instead boil it down to 'who would make the best President', and 'which candidate actually seems to know what's going on in the circles of power'. It doesn't take much imagination to see Warren is the best of the field.
At a personal level, I think Warren has a 'you better cut out what you're doing right now' death stare that could stop a person dead in their tracks. That could also be useful as President.
Some people talk about what can't happen and let their thoughts get hemmed in. Others think about the objective, and while knowing the path is always incomplete at the start, commit to move forward.
11
After reading more than a few comments here, and in many threads and forums before this, I'm getting tired of the "Bernie Bros" meme that supporters of other candidates, particularly women candidates - keep pointing to as the cause of their candidate's shortcomings. Are there real "Bernie Bros" that do the things attributed to all Sanders supporters? Of course, but I would like to see some statistics or numbers that show how many of Bernie's supporters slef identify as "Bernie Bros"?
And I would also like to ask anyone who blames the "Bernie Bros" for their candidate's failures if they've stopped to consider whether the "Bernie Bro" phenomenon isn't fueled by Russian - or Trump/Republican - cyber warfare? Perhaps one of the esteemed NYT journalists could look into this if they weren't under orders to obstruct Sanders in whatever way they can.
If a woman is to become President, she's going to have to overcome the deep seated resistance to the idea. What the full nature of this resistance is I don't know. Part of it is certainly gender bias and even misogyny, but I think it's something else. It's about how we expect candidates for President to be, and somehow no woman as yet has met that expectation. Maybe it's just going to take some woman to defy all the expectations and preconceptions to finally win before Americans adopt a different mindset. I believed Liz would've done better than Hilary but she chose to not run. Maybe she missed her chance.
2
We’re not there yet. Not counting out Warren. I think Iowa and NH are helping her refine her message, see what works. I know she says she doesn’t like to pay attention to polls, but she does, or at least her staff does. I’m not sure either Warren or Saunders will make it to the candidacy, however their messages will. My issue is reality. Whatever policies a President puts forward have to be passed by a House and a Senate, and with current GOP there is no compromise, no progress. Whomever is the candidate for President, after democratic convention, must work actively in each state to elect a democratic Senate and keep the House. It’s going to take more of a team effort than ever before.
The DNC allowed too many people into this race, making it a personality contest and taking attention away from what should have been a core message. Obama wanted healthcare for all, but had to compromise with the GOP to get anything passed, and the GOP is still working on destroying it as well as weakening all entitlements.
There have been too many iterations, too many bad translations and in an overly-crowded field, too little time to really dig into all aspects of each candidate’s message. I hope the DNC grows up and never allows this sort of nonsense again. This fragmentation of purpose is what is allowing Trump to submit a budget that does nothing but destroy our country and make us into the biggest ever military-industrial complex.
4
One issue that I don't think people who think similarly to E. Warren understand is how much small day to day things affect the whole image of a candidate. Simple things such as:
1 - Saying her kids went to public schools, which isn't true.
2 - The father talking to her about how worked double shifts, didn't take vacations in order to pay for his kid's school, and she smiled while he was talking.
3 - Getting off a private jet, and hiding behind one of her campaign members.
4 - Days later, "leaking" a video of her casually riding the public bus. Yeah, okay.
5 - Not being able to utter the words "raise taxes" every time she's asked about how she plans to pay for her plans.
Even if her plans were flawless, small traits showing some fake behavior are enough to eliminate trust.
Personally, I think she'll never recover from attacking Bernie Sanders. Even her fans cringed at that low blow.
9
I think Warren would make the best President, but I no longer think she can get elected. Partly because of the opposition to any woman candidate but also because the establishment corporate Democrats feared her the most. They don't fear Bernie because they know if he was elected he couldn't get anything done. But, Warren knows how the economy works how the capitalists work and she just might get something done.
So they beater her up through the corporate media creating false issues around the funding of Medicare for all and keeping your insurance.
4
The last line of this article broke my heart. We (us Democrats) can't demand respect from the Republicans if we can't even do it for each other. I'm frustrated that certain supporters of Bernie are acting without tact and not respecting other candidates and the process. Party unity is a nice thought. But this is leaving a horrible impression for Bernie's campaign.
5
Warren is most courageous knowing that the more policy proposals she presents, the more incoming missiles from everyone. She is proven right! The will connected who benefit from our system of tax avoidance, politician buying, etc like Zuckerberg believe she is an existential threat to ways of doing business.
She and Bernie are the only ones outraged but unlike him she is very clear on how begin to solve the problem. Becoming the front runner, brought attacks from mainstream media, MSNBC and CNN continue to put her down as too far out there! Bill Maher went after her, because the so called liberal icon is bad mouth her because of her 2% wealth tax for 50 million. Proving that corruption is both by the right and the left!
They promote Klobuchar, 80% of the time self promoting, 10% of the time attacking and the other percent issues. Biden who wants to go to the past is promoted more, Buttigieg their new darling got major playing time by attacking her medicare for all even though he previously backed it and now a plutocrat Bloomberg.
Warren's basic diagnosis of America is because raising money determines electability, to win office, politicians must concubine for their donor's wishes or they will lose. She correctly says nothing will change unless we change this rigged system. She is truly our modern day FDR with the same enemies trying to stop her. Over half century ago, under similar circumstance we made the right decision. God willing we must do it again.
9
The Democratic party is in trouble, and perhaps more than one realizes. If they choose Bernard Sanders, they ostracize suburbanites, but choosing Bloomberg, Biden or another moderate ostracizes progressives. Trump is the master of insane chaos and he's enjoying every minute of it.
1
India, Pakistan, Israel, and the UK all had women as prime minister in the second half of the 20th century. Not one of those places was more sexist than the United States is in 2020, or than it was 2016 for that matter.
Blaming sexism is both intellectually lazy and a facile way to avoid discussing what does, or doesn't resonate with voters. It's also a way to avoid discussing the intricacies of policy, which would require journalists to not only try to understand and scrutinize those policies, but to present them to readers in a way that holds the reader's interest.
Warren was always strongest when talking about economic policy and consumer protections, so much so that Tucker Carlson has even had laudatory things to say about Warren's 2004 book, The Two Income Trap. Warren has made a series of subsequent missteps however that have allowed her opponents to easily paint her as inauthentic, desperate or dishonest. It would be worthwhile to examine these missteps before chalking up her recent drops in the polls to sexism.
5
She pulled a Kamala Harris and flip flopped on Medicare for All. Shortly after blasting Petey Buttigieg for proposing "Medicare for All---Who Can Afford It," she backed off on making Medicare for All an immediate priority.
She then had her contrived Me Too made for TV (by CNN---Clinton News Network) moment, when she all but accused Bernie Sanders of sexism in a desperate move to jump start her campaign.
In a year that flat out demands authenticity from democratic candidates these were terrible unforced errors and likely were a death warrant for her campaign.
This has nothing at all to do with being a woman. I would have voted for her in a nanosecond over Hillary Clinton in 2016. She was a fairly close second choice of mine in 2020. But she was going to have to earn my sacred vote and to do so she was going to have to take it away from Bernie Sanders. She failed.
4
Senator Warren is not the problem, it's the intellectually challenged voters. They deserve another 4 years of Trump.
3
@ALN "lets be real and accept the fact that it is hard for women to make it to the top political rank."
Yes, you're right, but also let's be real and face the fact that it's WAY harder to be an out-of-the-closet gay man and to make it to the top. Yet Mayor Pete stands a good chance of doing just that. He's an exceptional candidate.
Why do so many of those championing the cause of women think it's OK to simply attack Mayor Pete for being male?! He faces discrimination 100-times that of women. Sen. K did this at the first debate whining about the plight of women, and blaming Mayor Pete for being male. Ridiculous! I found it to be self-serving and obnoxious.
You assert that there will be a gay president before a woman president, but I don't think so. Let's wait and we'll see. I love Hillary, and she was treated very unfairly by Republicans, Comey and Russians. But she SHOULD have campaigned in the battleground states instead of taking them for granted. She was also a boring campaigner though I know she would have made and excellent president. I was completely heart-broken when she lost, and to think that she lost to a racist con artist is just beyond the pale. Shame on America! Deep, everlasting shame!
4
Warren is having the same problems as Hillary. She's a bad campaigner. She's boring, repetitive and doesn't emotionally connect to most voters. And she should stop with the weird gesturing. Even Buttigieg, who doesn't have half of the credentials as Hillary and Warren has more charisma and is more likable. Unfortunately, running a campaign for President is more of a popularity contest than an intellectual contest. Warren might win the latter, but not the former.
4
There is no lack of hubris within the older Democratic field of candidates. It's obvious they each passionately want to be president; I get it. But at what cost?
Think of how rapidly other younger presidents have aged in office. Biden (77), Bloomberg (78) and Sanders (78) might be much more effective stepping down, allowing a smaller field to debate, then actively campaigning for the eventual nominee.
5
Wow. Who needs Fox News and Rush Limbaugh when you have the NY Times once again tearing into one of the more viable Democratic candidates, Elizabeth Warren.
I noticed the NY Times ripped into Hilary Clinton for months before the election and yet were not persistent in attacking and bringing into the light Trumps links to gangsters, corruption, failed business dealings, his numerous bankruptcies, his deeply held racism and misogyny, links to Russia and so on.
In my opinion, the NY Times has turned into a progressive chop mill, especially when it comes to female political candidates. Shame on them.
16
Warren is Hillary 2.0. A self dealer who is all about lining her pockets.
Warren's college debt forgiveness program rewards irrepsonible borrowers AND worse yet lets the colleges and universities off the hook. Of course Warren reportedly makes a cool $500K per year for teaching one session of one course per semester.
5
Warren like any Dem candidate who raised their hand at the 1st debate for healthcare for illegal aliens does not have a chance. The video clip will be played over and over in ads. And should be. Make no mistake the DNC wants open borders no matter the cost (higher taxes, lower wages, higher housing costs, etc.) for legal US citizens.
8
She killed her campaign with her sexist attack on Bernie Sanders when she claimed that a year ago he supposedly said in a private conversation (!) that he thought a woman could not win against Trump. Then refusing to shake hands. All that captured on camera.
That was her Kirsten Gillibrand moment. Just another sexist woman throwing her male opponent under the bus.
Fortunately, Bernie did not fall for it the way Al Franken did.
Warren is history, let's move on. She was too extreme anyway.
7
@Captain Nemo
For everyone who excuses that whole incident, please realize that Elizabeth lost all credibility in many minds when she allowed the 'moderator' to first force Bernie into stating "I never said that" and immediately turned to Elizabeth and asked "So how did you feel when he said that ?" (The look on Bernie's face at that moment was priceless). THAT was the point where Elizabeth could have clarified the CONTEXT of the leaked 'private' conversation. But she didn't, instead she used that blatantly leading question to charge off and tilt at sexist windmills. Clearly the whole thing was set up.
All that was missing was a "Bernie is Sexist" t-shirt being hawked on her website, ala Kamala Harris. It
was the same sort of dynamic. You'd think Elizabeth might have learned something from that debacle, but she didn't. Amy, on the other hand, is a learner.
3
@Captain Nemo It wasn't a sexist attack on Bernie! Someone else--not Elizabeth--told a reporter what Bernie had said (Warren obviously shared the contents of the conversation with a couple other people right after it happened.) What was she supposed to do when asked to confirm or deny? Why do you assume SHE's lying?
I like Bernie, but he's got his own baggage. I blame CNN for the whole episode; it was a stupid "gotcha" moment. Geez, if that episode was enough to turn off Warren "supporters," they didn't really support her to begin with.
5
So here we have the all important media gatekeepers telling us the second contest in a national election, where 24 of over 4,000 Democratic delegates are at stake, is the make or break. The photo they chose. The text suggesting she is not doing what needs to be done now. How about this: how about go investigate the ways this contest is being seriously undermined by dirty tricks, technological breakdowns, foreign interference and dark money. That would be truly useful.
7
Sen. Warren is stubbornly clinging to "Medicare for All"... This SHOULD be hurting Bernie, too, but he's cornered the market on those who just don't seem to care about the elimination of ALL private health insurance. But they should care, if only because it makes them both unelectable.
It's very sad to see Sen. Warren losing voters because I know her heart's in the right place in wanting to help those struggling to make ends meet. And both she and Bernie are right about corporations steeling from the poor, the working class and the middle class. I love their recognition of the fact that America is suffering under a corporate oligarchy. An oligarchy that is perfectly OK with keeping the illegitimate, impeached Trump in the White House because Trump takes good care of himself and the wealthy oligarchs. Trump is giving America's most precious resources to them: the environment and he's allowing them to wreck the US Treasure and put the US into massive debt. Senators Warren and Sanders would stop all this and fast!
4
The coverage of Warren hasn't been the best, yet she is the best or one of the best for the presidential role. In Iowa she was the runner-up in most precincts. She knows how to attack, and though I'd love to see her as president, she'd also be an awesome vice president. She'll do well here in the midwest!
Go, Warren!
8
I’ve been following Elizabeth Warren for well over a decade now. She was a great champion of financial education and fairness. She rightly pointed out the rigged rules of the financial services industry, and administered rules to reign them in. Of course that was all tossed aside by Mick Mulvaney and the Republicans. She has done some great work.
However I never heard her talk on any other subject until a year or so ago. Being an advocate for saving people money doesn’t qualify you to be president. Because she was one of few female politicians who received some notoriety, she was motivated to run for President. I think she did a great job generating policy positions then telling people to read her white papers. However, her grasp of some of these other subjects never convinced me she had the breadth required to make all the important decisions of the country. I also find her tone in speeches to be a bit too fake folksy to take seriously. She’s an academic at heart and tries to hide that with her accent and by talking about “back home in Oklahoma.” I find her very hard to listen to.
2
@RK "However, her grasp of some of these other subjects never convinced me she had the breadth required to make all the important decisions of the country."
That's what advisers and staff are for. I trust Warren more than any of the rest to surround herself with the right people.
4
Warren was my #1 choice but there is no realistic path to victory if you are going to finish 3rd or 4th in every state.
I still think it is tactically better for progressives if Warren stays in the race until Super Tuesday. The strong progressives have already left her to rally behind Sanders. Her remaining supporters are likely to not be very progressive and if she drops out before Super Tuesday, that could help prop up corporatist candidates like Amy or Pete.
Warren should start making plans to run until Super Tuesday and endorse Sanders at that point and ask her delegates to vote for Sanders.
If everything goes well for Sanders until then, he will be in a strong position as a prohibitive front-runner and Warren will have a reliable partner in government to realize her plans for America.
I sincerely hope she does not listen to the ex-Obama people who seem to be among her staff and plod along aimlessly beyond Super Tuesday based on some futile "girl power" type arguments.
1
I guess the natural consequence cutting each other apart is happening to all them debate-candidates: They all lose. Watching them debating feels like watching the WWE. Bloomberg was smart not to get himself into this mess. Now he stands tall for it.
Warren may be the most intellectually qualified of all the candidates. Which makes you wonder how she manages to get herself in predicaments like Pocahontas where instead of allowing it to run its course (like Blumenthal did when he fabricated his military service) she attempted to extricate herself by means of apologies and DNA testing and the more she tried the dumber she looked. And then when she instigated the conflict with Sanders quoting him that a woman couldn't win, then walking it back, then resurrecting it, then going to pieces when Sanders denied it. It seems that latter error in judgment is what precipitated Warren's decline in the polls. That said, any of the Democratic candidates will beat Donald Trump as long as they show up and establish a presence, which Hillary Clinton did not do.
4
Warren has "has largely avoided engaging her opponents?" What? I guess if you use the word "largely" you give yourself a lot of leeway but the statement is "largely" false by any reasonable standard. In recent months, her biggest moments have been precisely when she has engaged/attacked opponents (Buttigieg for the wine cave and Sanders for being a misogynist). Other than these moments, the only substance to come out of her campaign were an impossible calculus to pay for her health care plan followed by a backtrack on the entire plan once the insanity of the original proposal became obvious.
2
Warren's "failings" began when monied interests began their all out anyone but Warren campaign. I'm including the Media in their Bernie 2016 style blackout of Warren coverage.
She is the only viable bridge to the Bernie and "moderate" camps. Bloomberg is just another autocratic narcissist, but with a couple of socially liberal positions and a race problem.
4
It is amazing that there seems to be an emerging consensus in the media: Warren must be stopped.
5
@Larry Roth
perhaps the Russians are helping. They really think she can win.
1
I really like Elizabeth Warren and think she would make an excellent president. I agree with many of the comments that she is facing an uphill climb because she is a woman, however I think that much of what is missing in her campaign is that she (oddly enough) does not talk about things in a way that resonates with people in the middle of the country. Her logic, the way she presents her case, her take on what it means to appear more accessible - they all miss the mark. It's like she's forgotten where she came from and just can't find her way back. She needs to take a page out of almost any other candidate's book. I think Amy Klobuchar nailed this in the last debate and the voters seem to be responding.
3
It's hard to understand why Elizabeth Warren was the favored candidate until a few weeks ago. The media seems to be piling on. She should paraphrase Mark Twain:
"Rumors or my demise have been greatly exaggerated."
11
“She reminds me of every best teacher I ever had,” he said. - So true-yet another reason why I'm voting for her.
13
I actually think Warren is the candidate most likely to fight dirty against Trump (along with Bloomberg maybe) Like, when he puts a bunch of Native Americans with grievances in the debate audience (you know he will), she'll bring in the Trump Casino constuction workers he stiffed in the late '80s. I see Bernie just sticking to the debate issues, and that's no longer enough. We need some guerilla tactics, here.
9
I used to like her until she said decriminalize border crossings - too extreme for me. Not sad to see her fade.
7
Tired of the female victim "narrative." (And every other reductive identity politics victim story at the exclusion of other variables.) I like Warren and her policies, but she tends to pander to left and I find her hard to watch: strained, anxious, and jumpy. Klobuchar--with her humor and deliberative cool--is much more effective, telegenically. Buttigieg is much smoother. And Bernie just doesn't give a hoot.
I think people need to worry more about the disinformation wars. Like the White Walkers: winter is coming.
10
@sansacro
I find Klobuchar's prosecutorial record very concerning, and in the debates she has tended to center her answers around herself. Warren speaks to real people about what is best for the country.
3
It's not a female barrier causing her slide. It's the fact she lied about being a Native American Indian to get a high paying gig at Harvard that did her in, that and the whole DNA campaign that failed miserably.
9
Liz is nothing more than Hillary 2.0. No one likes her, her message stinks, and she's already done. As far as women go Tulsi is the only intelligent one, but again no chance.
It's Trump 2020 people, get used to it...
6
@US Guy - Amen brother.
@US Guy
I love her. I am someone. There are a lot like me.
2
Has she ever told the truth? She lied about her heritage, she lied about being fired for being pregnant, she lied about her kids not attending private schools, she lied about her father being a janitor, she lied about fulfilling her term as Senator., it just never ends. Her judgement is horrible. Doesn't she know that all these blatant lies can be checked?
12
@Matt
So you have never lied ? We know your favorite candidate Trump never lies.
3
This article is based on a made-up premise that Warren "was expected to win" Iowa and NH.
NH "Live Free or Die"has more Independents and has been polling consistently Biden and Bernie for months, you can see the history at Nate Silver's 538 polling results and aggregate. Iowa had very few polls leading up, but none for her.
Yet she shocked by beating "the most electable" Biden in Iowa.
7
I respect Senator Warren's work effort. She has worked tirelessly for the nomination and she appears to be quite a dynamo.
However, her false claim to Native American ancestry to advance her law career is unforgivable. It speaks poorly to her character. Add that to her flip flop policy and political party affiliations, and she looks like any other opportunistic politician.
Tulsi Gabbard is the real deal, and if you want a woman with bold and bridge building ideas, she is the most qualified to beat Trump.
6
The dark money of the rich and powerful, Wall St. and big tech have been working diligently to tear down Sen. Warren because she is an effective threat to their wealth and power. Sanders to them is a joke, a sure fire loser to Trump. Mayor Pete is their protege: he talks in consultant speak like he was in a boardroom. He's no threat. Neither is Biden really, and Bloomberg is one of them. But Sen. Warren has done things and the thing she did was the CFPB. When that passed I worked at a bank, and boy, did that bank hate her and the CFPB she created. We got emails about how evil it all was. The rich and powerful know she can get stuff done, just like the CFPB. Warren must be defeated while Bernie gets a pass. So far they are winning.
11
Elizabeth Warren: "I've got a plan for that!"
Mike Tyson: "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."
It looks like Elizabeth Warren didn't have a plan to win the nomination, or if she did, Iowa and New Hampshire punched her in the mouth. Either way, it looks like she is out for the count.
Someone else will win the nomination. And the presidency.
9
@John Smithson Yeah it appears she was advised by Alfred E. Newman & sons.
1
Both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar need to address their presentation while out campaigning and at the debates. They are both interviewing for the greatest job in the country, but they both look frumpy. That's right - I wrote it. It is a sad day when men up women in fashion. I'm not talking going all-out designer, but I think that is what killed Hillary as well - the crayon-colored pants suits and the helmet haircut. Nothing to be ashamed about being a little feminine looking and stylish. Many young people will be voting and these women DO have an advantage over the men in style. Hillary looked her best when Secretary of State, and then she went - well - frump. I know I am going to get a lot of flack for this comment (IF posted), but a good part of getting a job is presentation.
5
@Jane Doe
On a side note one the reasons women have trouble in the work force is their attire. Many of them dress like clowns. Men wear uniforms. Navy or dark suit or trouser and shirt. One's behavior and work and ideas are suppose to stand out. Not one's clothes. Would you hire a man who wore a flowerd suit? Red high heels? Excessive jewelry. Remember how silly Madeline Albright dressed. The mini skirts and tons of jewelry? And at least 50 year old Kathleen Sebelius with her blouses open down pratically to her navel?
1
@Jane Doe
Good example of the double standard. I’ve not seen anyone declare Sanders unelectable because he is frumpy.
5
@Reader In Wash, DC Unfortunately, women have to work harder to be recognized. I agree many women in offices dress like clowns or as if they are going to do gardening work. My suggestion was to dress professionally, not like you are going to weed or brunch with the gals. I've worked in corporate - sitting in the hallway - for over 40 years and find those women under dressed are ignored or dismissed and women (and I try) who dress professionally (not clownish, there is a difference) are heard and respected. Maybe not fair, but the way it goes. And you don't have to spend a mint - I have quite a collection of Salvation Army Chic.
I was a Warren fan when the campaign started. She simply has not had a strategy for winning, and has not used her resources well.
I don't know enough about campaigniing to know why she keeps sliding in the polls - but she is certainly facing a barrage of negative publicity as a "socialist."
She does not have a strategy for how to confront this criticism and just keeps giving the same stump speech. She looks very thin and worn out. She started looking very energetic. I expect her to drop out after North Carolina.
Democrats need to get behind their front runner - whoever she/he is who has the best chance of beating Donald Trump.
There are vitually no differences between Democratic candidates - they argue over trivia the president doesn't even control on their stupid debates.
Tom Perez is a terrible DCCC Chair and seems incapable of doing anything. The Russians are brainwashing the gullible this election as well as the 2016 and Democrats haven't realized that unity not competition is the way to beat Trump.
I see disaster ahead. I think Elizabeth Warren is fabulous. She has not appeared presidential.
4
Which race is she claiming to be ... running?
2
Interesting to read the comments, some contradictory:
She’s too combative.
She’s not enough of a fighter.
She’s authentic/a phony.
Honest/a liar.
Etc.
Many dragging her down for every real or perceived “flaw”:
She’s not “presidential” (like Bernie is?).
She’s changed her views (who hasn’t?).
She’s not likable/a scold/shrill (or any other criteria that only women are held to).
She’s made mistakes and missteps (well, there’s no one to vote for then, because EVERYONE has).
SO. MUCH. JUDGING.
13
Intelligent, thoughtful, energetic, positive
What's not to like?
14
Liar and flip flopper.
2
I wish people would stop using the unbreakable glass ceiling excuse. Ms. Warren will not be the nominee because, though her intentions are good, she is far too extreme in her views on everything from health care to tuition. As horrifying a prospect as it is, the spectre of four more years of the current POTUS looms over this campaign as the current crop of Democratic candidates cannot connect with a large part of the population. Most of Middle America, much of Mr. Trump's base, is not interested in being lectured on both how they've been disenfranchised AND on how they should be sharing their hard earned money with others. Ms. Warren's base, which consists largely of wealthy liberals and well-meaning millennials, are not to be found in New Hampshire so naturally her standing there is having a hard time taking flight. Also, Ms. Warren's not seen as a New Englander, which she herself seems bent on reminding everyone given the myriad times she harkins back to her mid-western upbringing. Therefore any advantage she might have had as a senator from Massachusetts simply does not exist.
8
Warren, while not a socialist, overlapped with Sanders in how ordinary voters saw her programs. Today the Gallup poll reveals that Americans are willing to consider many kinds of candidates except socialists and atheists.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication
Although findings are not surprising for those in touch with attitudes of ordinary voters, many liberal Democrats are not in touch, making them convinced that Sanders is likely to be the next president.
7
I think it hugely disappointing that the two women remaining really and truly are smarter and more effective leaders than the men on the stage and yet the writing is on the wall that neither one of them are going to win.
I think either one would be a much better president than whichever guy wins. If we're lucky, Klobuchar, Harris and Warren will each be offered juicy cabinet positions from which at least one of them can then reach for the presidency.
7
Mike, running for the presidency from a position in the cabinet is no better than running as a senator. Just the opposite. It's worse.
Hillary Clinton did take the Secretary of State position under Barack Obama. But I think she was a unique case and, arguably, that did not help her presidential bid.
2
I would vote for Warren if Bernie were not running. My dream ticket would be Sanders-Warren. Klobuchar is talking like a Republican, wow. I can't remember which billionaire owns Buttigieg-maybe it is communal amongst the upper class, like a time-share. Anyway, Sanders-Warren 2020!
6
Her downfall started with discussing a wealth tax -- that's when the op-eds attacking her began. I assume that the billionaires, directly or indirectly, commissioned oil for the slippery slope down.
9
Her downfall started when she abandoned M4A. It was the most damaging in a long string of bad judgements.
2
The corporate media and Democratic Party power brokers have literally spent months bad mouthing Warren. Now they are asking what happened to her campaign? That's rich. Sadly, they are trying to do the same to Sanders in the form of Clinton interviews and daily digs against him on MSNBC (It was no accident that Chris Matthews was on air musing that he worries that Sanders will "start executing people if he wins"). This is the new social order brought to you by the ruling class, where elections are not won or lost, they are managed.
8
@MarkusA
Chris Mathews needs to retire. He does not deserve to be in a lineup with Ari Melber, Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell.
1
Warren is one of those shallow, self-centered people that will say or do anything to get ahead, something that should be of concern to all of us. Whether it's making up a uniquely dishonest ancestry to further her career, attacking Sanders with slander, or promising financial giveaways to buy votes, she has shown us that she'd sell her soul to the devil to gain power. And her "I've got a plan for that", while entertaining, once again proves that liberal academics aren't very good with numbers, something they don't ever have to worry about in the education industry.
9
The man who lowered his window to shout "Go Bernieeee" at her is everything that is wrong with a segment of Bernie supporters, and what has really turned me off to him this time around. Similar to Trump supporters... obnoxious white male grievance. I will vote for him if he wins the nomination though of course. He's still 100x better than Trump, and I don't doubt that Sanders genuinely cares about working people.
I love Warren and can't wait to vote for her on Super Tuesday. And I know it defies conventional "electability" expectations, but I would LOVE it if Harris were her VP. There, I said it.
14
@Jackson My decision has nothing to do with "identity politics." It has to do with the fact that I think they are the most qualified candidates and would make an excellent team. Harris is sharp as a tack and she was actually my first choice for president.
If anyone is playing identity politics it is the aggrieved white men who cling to Trump as their savior from anyone else wanting to have an equal say at the table. "Victimized" so-called "Christians" too, who think the world is out to get them simply because the rest of us exist.
1
The coverage by the Times and many other media outlets for Warren has been pathetic and they should be embarrassed because of it.
Warren came in third in Iowa but instead of hearing about that all we heard about was Klobuchar. The fix is in against Warren. There have been a couple of Articles in the last week or two telling the same story. The media does not want a Warren presidency and they are doing as little coverage as possible to see that she is marginalized and sent packing.
In an article today, right here in the times you show her looking dejected and downtrodden. When you had the chance to have a "read more" option about the other candidates who was the ONLY ONE you didn't give that option to? Elizabeth Warren.
The establishment must really fear her policies. She is the most well thought out and prepared of all the candidates. She has explained her policies in depth and is willing to listen to others when it comes to amending some of them.
This idea that her ideas are pie in the sky and not doable are a load of you know what. We can do almost anything we want if we win the senate and house, along with the presidency.
The Times should be ashamed of themselves along with all the other media who have willfully ignored Warren while they try to expedite her exit.
Unbelievable!
10
Magan, you talk about the media and the establishment as though they were two huge monoliths that have their own desires and wills. They aren't.
1
Some, like Warren or Biden, could do the job but they don’t have enough mojo to actually win enough supporters. Others, like Sanders or Buttigieg, have “excess baggage” charges they just can’t settle. Bloomberg-Klobuchar, now that’s a W.
2
I’ve always thought that announcing early results and polling figures should be prohibited before all votes are in.
I understand that such announcements make elections seem more exciting and that doing so definitely serves the short-term interests (i.e., bank accounts) of owners of newspapers and other news media; but such announcements do *not* serve democracy or the country, in either the short or long term.
Say what you will, but, really, it is not much else but influence peddling and, yes, election meddling.
13
I agree. Even better, if not so practical, would be saving the results of each state’s primary elections until all of the state primaries were completed. That way, the early-voting states wouldn’t have undue influence on the elections/nomination as a whole, though they might grumble about losing $$$ brought in by thousands of campaign workers and reporters descending on their state for a few weeks in the middle of winter.
Perhaps a solution would be for all states to hold the primary on the same day, as happens in the general election. More fair that way.
1
Warren is my definite top choice, no matter what happens in Iowa or New Hampshire. And frankly I think we shouldn't let them decide our vote. It's a primary, not the general election. Vote for who you want, be disappointed if they don't get the nomination, but still support the nominee to get Trump out. That's my strategy. I greatly admire her intelligence and ambition, as seen through her comprehensive plans. What I admire in her over Bernie is how she doesn't just shout big ideas, but has detailed and arguably more realistic plans to achieve them. I believe she has (or had), as a toned down version of Bernie, the potential to unite the moderates with the progressives. She's genuine, humble, and compassionate, which unfortunately may also be a flaw. I think her unwillingness to act like a calculating politician may be causing her fall. Still, it's way too early to call, and I'll be rooting for her.
24
I've been a Sanders supporter from the beginning, but have also liked Warren. In fact, in 2016, I really wanted her to challenge Hilary, and I believe she would've won and gone on to beat Trump. Instead Sanders picked up the challenge, and despite the baggage of his Democratic Socialist tag, and the ill disguised subterfuge by the DNC and Establishment, almost pulled it off. The contrast between Sanders and Warren is summed up in their respective decisions to run or not run.
Bernie was, and is, fueled by his lifelong support of populist causes. (That's right, populist. It's not an exclusive right-wing ideology). He has always fought for the average person and the downtrodden, even when the Democratic Party turned its back on them and began to suck up to the donor class. Long before Liz realized that being a Republican went against her own populist ideas. Sanders has been fearless, and stood up to all the attacks mounted against him, not only from the right, but from the Democrats as well, and he still pushes the same agenda without apology or compromise. He's authentic. He's not trying to be a typical politician, saying what he thinks people want to hear. He's telling people what they NEED to hear.
Liz just doesn't seem to have that same level of authenticity. And she needs to stop being a lecturer, and see things from the "student's" POV. I believe she understands their plight, but do they? Or are they waiting for her to hand out the tests at the end of the lecture?
5
That’s ludicrous. She grew with age and experience .
She is easily the smartest one running.
Why is Bernie so authentic ? Bc he has been saying the same sentence for forty years? That’s not an accomplishment.
Look at her accomplishments , her plans, her willingness to actually answer questions ( something Bernie has a really hard time doing. )
Bernie Sanders campaign is why she is falling. You guys called her a liar and that is a label this culture loves to pin on women. Shame on all of you;
11
@ Lupe
How Hillary-sequence of you. Blaming the voters, Bernie Bros, misogyny etc. instead of the candidate for her poor performance.
4
Leave it to American's to consistently vote against their better interest. It seems to be pandemic across part lines.
I like Ms. Warren. I respect her and I trust her.
I definitely prefer her to Sanders, Biden, Buttigieg (who I do not trust) and Klobuchar.
But, sadly, I think she is too smart for her own, and our own good.
But at least, when all is said and done, we still have her in the Senate. There she has fought a good fight for us. Too bad American's are not ready to appreciate her more fully and grant her greater legislative authority and power. She'd make a fine and deeply respectable executive in office. She'd restore dignity and class, and bring intelligence and vibrant conversation back into our national discourse.
14
I would like to vote for Warren for President.
However, the Media seems to have decided that she
will not make it to April.
If and when she comes in fourth in New Hampshire they
will be calling on her to drop out of the race.
Warren, like Nixon, is not a natural politician, but she is,
like Nixon very intelligent and hard working.
She might serve the country better as a Vice President
working out all the details and changes she and I and others
think America needs. Going up to Congress and pushing for the passage of necessary bills might, in the long run, do more for America than being President and being pilloried by the press every day.
In the end Elizabeth is like the demanding High School teacher that you are very thankful you had when you get to college.
11
@John Brown
"Warren, like Nixon, is not a natural politician"
I agree with the assessment of Warren but not necessarily the one about Nixon. Give him his due: The man was on the national ticket five times, a feat rivaled only by FDR, who ran for president four times and for vice president (in 1920) once (and lost, obviously).
Disclaimer: I am not, and never have been, a supporter of Nixon.
I think this is another example of over-analyzing Iowa and New Hampshire in a rushed attempt to prematurely write political obituaries. I don't care what the supposedly immutable laws of political physics are when it comes to the first two primaries, or to political strategy, which journalists seem obsessed with. Talk to me after Super Tuesday. Before that, it's all talk and speculation -- er, I mean, analysis.
7
So irritated that so many men entered the race after several well-qualified and viable women had already announced their candidacy.
Especially the two older guys, both of whom already have had amole opportunity to move in and shape the federal government and the laws and policies thereof, and both of whom have already run for POTUS — and lost every time.
Will I vote for them if one is chosen by the majority to be the nominee? Yes, but I and numbers of others will do so begrudgingly.
11
I am sorry but Elizabeth Warren the former Republican now turned quasi socialist is unelectable. Her plan for this plan for that is preposterous and anyone who is capable of free thought will see right through her smoke and mirrors campaign strategy.
6
What mystifies me is how a smart, accomplished, articulate woman like Warren can go out there and grind away day after day, week after week, month after month -- doing the things that have to be done on the campaign trail. The same can be said of several other candidates.
1
Dear Warren Supporters
R-E-L-A-X
She will be an excellent Cabinet member. Her ideas will not be lost in the Democratic win in November.
4
Warren is a second tier candidate for the nomination. She can only succeed in winning the nomination if the ones in front of her falter. This is the reality she faces.
4
"Lately, Ms. Warren has taken to calling herself the unity candidate — a complicated messaging task for a senator whose political identity has registered more often for her unswerving progressive passions."
Warren has been changing stripes every few weeks or months as if no one knows who she really is. She has spent years pretending that she is something she is not. It's finally catching up to her.
She's just a fraud. And she thinks that's how to play politics. But it's not. She's an amateur and it shows.
4
Ms. Warren just needs to lighten up. Her opponents and the press have caste her as a shrew. That's the box she's in.
She should show her wit and likableness by changing her appearances into a comedy riff.
She should also recast her take on healthcare. The focus should not be on cost and coverage, but on a human system that actually takes care of you. Healthcare needs a visionary advocate.
She should say she will work with any of her opponents after the nomination, whatever appends in the primaries.
4
It's far too early to count Warren out. I could well see her winning.
I don't love the campaign she's running, emphasizing gender so much. I don't even understand the rationale for it. For some voters, her being a woman will be a plus. They don't need her to like, point it out to them that she's a woman and would be the first woman president.
For other voters, her being a woman may be a minus. For them, she should emphasize her OTHER pluses, to outweigh that minus--not try to "convert" them away from their sexist preferences (which would never work).
4
In Trump terms:
Bloomberg is a 9 - has the $$$, smarts and experience. He needs the trust.
Biden is a 6 - runs on the past, not very inspirational, not forceful enough defence on Trump's smear, which failed but actually didn't
Buttigeig is a 5 - not ready
Sanders is a 4 - "socialism" will never catch, can inspire some, too easy to target
Clobuchar is a 3 - "I'm nice" not enough to inspire
Warren is a 2 - unclear message just like HRC, too theatrical
Bloomberg will win NH as well.
1
“She reminds me of every best teacher I ever had,” he said." That's Warren's biggest problem: she lectures, she scolds, she pontificates. Also, in the age of instant access to information (fake and real) images of her claiming Native heritage never disappear.
6
Why is all the media, including the NYT, now embracing the narrative that Elizabeth Warren is losing steam, getting disconnected from reality, not a viable candidate etc?
Don't you realize that by reporting news in a certain way you not only describe reality, but influence it?
I wish all news outlets took a serious inward look and stopped thinking about news as "exciting storytelling".
14
Agreed.
4
Warren’s poll numbers started to tank the second Wall Street declared war on her campaign and threw tons of money to “the moderates”. Somehow this has escaped the press’ collective notice...
12
Dems needs to think/vote with their Heads, not their Hearts. We all have the candidates we'd Like to win the Dem candidacy, but remember... the Dems' focus needs to be on getting Trump Out...not on getting Candidate XYZ In.
So in other words, instead of each of us focusing on which particular Dem candidate we may prefer to see in the White House, we need to collectively strategize about .... which candidates are more or less likely to beat Trump?
In order to beat Trump, we need a candidate who can attract a significant number of votes from Mods, Indies and ex-Trumpers/on-the-fence Trumpers.
Think about that good and hard, before you stubbornly refuse to consider any of the other Dem candidates out there. Heck, there are a number of Dem candidates I really love, but at the same time, I'm open-minded and smart enough to realize that some of these particular folks have zero chance of securing enough votes from the non-Dems.
There are candidates we may like, and then there are candidates who can realistically beat Trump. Get out of your bubbles... away from your 'camps'....and think about who can realistically secure these other votes.
2
All these comments that say Elizabeth is losing because she is a woman is absurd. Hillary showed that Americans are willing to vote for a woman. We have clear data on that.
2
However, just because one woman broke a glass ceiling (if not all the way; thanks electoral college non-democracy), doesn’t mean that no woman to follow is ever subject to sex/gender discrimination.
5
She is a scold. That won’t beat Trump.
5
Warren's repetitive dishonesty is her albatross.
5
@Bill Mendacity doesn't seem to inhibit presidential candidacy any longer. If someone can tell tens of thousands of lies and still be president, there needs to be some other measure.
1
So tired of MSM's lack of regard for Warren. I know the NYT semi-endorsed her, but the narrative since Iowa has all been about Bernie, Biden and Mayor B. I've been calling for Warren in NH and some people didn't even know she'd been in third place there. And all this nonsense about "electability" creates a false narrative that just heightens the fear Democrats already feel about choosing a candidate. The negative tone of this article, rather than celebrating her third place finish and persisting, just continues the misogyny. Just like the NYT did with Hillary's emails, you are again framing the most qualified candidate, because she is a woman, in constant negative terms.
14
@Enoriver Thank you! That was my initial reaction. "Oh good, another hit piece on Warren."
4
@Enoriver I have concluded that most of the articles are written by Bernie bros.
The tone of this article is very unnecessarily negative. All the quotes mentioned are positive, and show that Warren has a good following that is not alarmed by her third place. So why does the author sound like (a) he's written her off and (b) he's writing an op-ed instead of a report? I subscribe to NY Times for balanced, unbiased reporting. Articles like these are disappointing.
15
Ah media! Stop it! Stop analyzing every single candidate to the nth, minuscule degree.
7
Yes! This year, especially, The NYT seems to have iterations of iterations of articles (news and opinion) about individual candidates and seemingly every moment before, during, and after a debate or primary.
Yes, it’s an election season presenting us decisions that are perhaps more broadly and deeply consequential than in recent memory. But the ad nauseam and often overly-overlapping reporting and opining is enough to turn many people off from reading or learning anything further about the candidates, their proposed policies, or the elections. That outcome serves no one; least of all the news media (e.g., NYT) trying to sell papers and subscriptions, or just to retain the subscribers it already has.
What other news/topics is being shunted aside, and the subjects thereof left languishing, because so much ink/bytes is being spent on such obsessing over a few “hot” topics in part to populate the Times’ new (and somewhat rabbit-hole-like) format.
2
A very long article with very little to report.
5
Warren and Biden will be done after tonight.
Both will hang in, tough, trying to fatten their war chest before dropping out after SC.
CIA-Pete will do well again, warming the dumbed down Democratic masses up for Republican savior billionaire Bloomberg (and fellow racist) to swoop in to challenge front runner (since 2016) Bernie Sanders.
So in the end it will be a race between two old Jewish guys. One with a lifelong record of trying to make the US better for everyone, the other with a lifelong record of helping himself and his billionaire class to the detriment of everybody else.
One would think that’d be a no-brainer.
3
I'd like to see the next Warren article written by a woman.
8
Liz Warren is deceitful , she claimed to be a Native American but she's not, she took the jobs away from people who deserve the position because they are Native American.
3
@Jimd
You’re wrong. Check the facts.
3
If you must publish these types of fashionable "candidate in decline" articles, at least wait until after New Hampshire.
5
The press loves the mudslining, the polls, the stories, because it sees itself as being in the business of entertainment.
Well, this kind of entertainment is getting stale.
10
I just marked my Super Tuesday vote-by-mail ballot for Senator Warren - because she has lived a life that gives her empathy for everyday Americans, and she's a clear minded rational thinker who has plans. I like Bernie's values, but I don't see him as an effective president. I like Amy's salt of the earth messaging as well. I will vote "Blue no matter who" - and I think a Dem will win, but I'm also worried about down ballot races. We need to win the Senate and keep the House if we are to be effective. Keep fightin' Liz! At this rate, perhaps no one will amass a majority, I think, and we'll have some solid brokering.
12
" The 'real' one may be passing her by" ("She's lagging. Vote for who can win").
With help from articles [and headlines] like this.
8
That two states that represent such a tiny fraction of voters have such disproportionate influence is beyond ridiculous and undemocratic.
9
Michelle Carusso-Cabrera, a right wing capitalist CNBC reporter who spent decades defending the filthy rich and their policies is apparently running against AOC. Totally hysterical.
1
@CacaMera And using the same "want people to have the same opportunities I had and I'm in this race to help the middle class" story as Warren. It's disgusting.
Many have noted how the media cover our elections like horse races. Leave it to the NYT to raise the bar, so as to cover an election like the stock market, as Warren is the unloved value stock among flashy growth stocks.
7
Reality Check women need to get an vote . Should make manditory every women should vote if you want to be citzen of usa. Given there are now more women then men could easyly be defeated at polls. Men generally hope people dont vote easyer for them to get into office.
I wish there weren’t any “predictions”, polls, etc. After all the polls REALLY screwed up in the last election. People who don’t read much and form their own opinion tend to listen to what the pollsters say and jump on the band wagon of whatever poll they happen to read or listen to last before they go vote.
This primary is very difficult to predict and all the democratic candidates are so good and earnest in their patriotic messages and have such good ideas, but the one who I think has good plans is Ms Warren and she has had from the very beginning. Just because she is lagging behind according to the pollsters, doesn’t mean anything. She still is a powerful voice for change.
I wish the pollsters will STOP and let people decided on their own!
7
@Manuela Bonnet-Buxton The idea that all virtue signaling would go away is unrealistic. If polls go away then they would be replaced by fundraising totals or some other statistic. There will always be front runners.
Liz Warren is in a tough position. She can’t attack Sanders too harshly anymore if she wants to be in the running for his VP, which will be coveted given Bernie’s age.
I think the best thing for her to do at this point is to soften her stance and move more towards the center. It’s too early/risky to endorse but then at least she won’t be in Bernie’s way and might have a better chance of being a cabinet pick for Buttigieg or Bloomberg if one of those make it.
1
Bernie has excited the liberal base much more than Elizabeth. AOC is the most popular representative in Congress. And she's Bernie's top surrogate.
One more thing. Bernie admits to being a Democratic Socialist and points to Scandinavian socialist countries success as prime examples. Elizabeth claims to be a capitalist. Capitalism hasn't worked for decades for the working class.
4
@Larry Buchas The Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They have capitalist economies with a welfare state sustained by high taxation, and therefore line up more closely to what Warren is proposing than with Sanders.
11
@Larry Buchas Scandinavian countries are tiny, and everyone looks the same. You ask citizens there about the high taxes and entitlements, they consider it a club membership with exclusivity. Everyone pays a lot of tax for this club membership. Even now with refugees coming in from the Middle East and Africa, Scandinavians say the system cannot sustain itself if everyone is let in. Sound familiar?
4
@Charlie Reidy Scandinavian nations are definitely capitalist and in fact have a relatively low corporate tax rate. They have also tried and repealed wealth taxes because they don’t work which is a hint at how Warren’s tax would play out.
1
Bernie has done his job; he moved the national conversation so that the needs of real working people, not only capital gains recipients, are important policy issues. That said, his solutions aren’t realistic and he has NO LEGISLATIVE TRACK RECORD that proves he can work within our three branch system to make necessary changes. Where are his PLANS? He can’t shout his solutions into legislation....
Elizabeth Warren has similar priorities and SHE HAS THE EXPERTISE AND PROVEN TRACK RECORD to start making necessary changes! And she is pragmatic so that she can (has already do so on MCFA) adjust to accommodate what is short term possible, while continuing to work toward long term goals. I truly wish Bernie would step aside; I believe Elizabeth Warren would be a much more effective and productive President!
13
This breaks my heart. I have been watching Elizabeth since she championed ordinary people’s ability to file bankruptcy. She is my clear choice to donate money to, volunteer for, and vote for. But her message is getting muddled and her delivery is stale, simply because she is not a politician. When she survives New Hampshire, her campaign folks and she need to take a deep breath, re-evaluate, and figure out how to deliver the message in a way that resonates. Instead of hammering on the fight against billionaires ( a given at this point), let’s talk about lifting everyone up. She can do that, and she will do that.
16
I like her but she erred when she tried out-Bernie Bernie.
Too bad she stood aside in 16 for HRC.
All I can say is that we are going to lose catastrophically if we nominate Bernie.
10
@Lefthalfbach - just pay attention to the states that matter the most in the upcoming primaries: Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. 'nuf said.
It has been a great campaign. And campaigns tend to reveal character.
Ms Warren is not going to be president.
6
I'll be voting on Super Tuesday. Am I allowed to ignore what the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina have decided for themselves, or am I only limited to rubber-stamping their selections?
12
@Byrwec Ellison, exactly.
Byrwec Ellison, of course you can vote for whoever you want. I've already sent in my ballot in California, so I won't be influenced by the New Hampshire results. And I don't see any evidence that the Iowa results narrowed the field any.
Truth is, in the general election this fall most voters' votes won't matter. Mine in California will be meaningless. So will yours in Texas. Only the swing states will matter.
That's just the way elections are.
Warren will not win because of her platform of "free everything" - healthcare, college tuition and day care - will not fly with the bulk of American voters; they just don't believe there are enough billionaires and millionaires to pay for it. Add to that the percentage of men who will never vote for a woman, a progressive, a socialist, a Democrat or a former Wall Streeter, she just won't be the nominee. I think she's done great as a Senator, but she's no match for Trump's insults and taunting. Which is a shame.
4
@kcl, oh there is MORE than enough wealth stuffed into off-shore accounts and overseas corporations to fund a thousand years of free things for the middle and working classes - but out civilization won't survive that long as global climate change increasingly tightens its chokehold on Mother Earth.
5
It all started to go wrong for Ms. Warren after she complained publicly about a private conversation she says she had with Mr. Sanders, accusing him of sexism. He denied saying what she said he said, and she suddenly looked self interested in revealing a private conversation--just another politician who will say and do whatever they think serves them, no matter violating the privacy of a conversation. Too bad, she hadn't seemed like just another politician, but when she did, she started to sink.
11
Totally agree. I was an early Warren supporter, and she had come off her peak somewhat when she decided to point the finger at Bernie for his supposed comment (inane strategy—who would believe he is sexist?). That was a fatal mistake. She suddenly just appeared to be as manipulative and corrupt as the worst of them.
4
Warren just doesn't seem tough enough and people are tired of her. In this battle against Trump, she comes off wimpy and scolding. The Democrats need someone with a breath of fire right now not a schoolmarm.
6
The hatred of Trump is making Democratic voters nervous about who's the most electable. Sen. Warren is the best choice in the field, high energy, smart and with policies for everything, she does not have to dumb down her messaging for the folks who don't vote anyway.
9
This easily could be a situation where first primaries are not predictive, especially given the muddled Iowa results. With the large delegate primaries upon us, I’m voting for Elizabeth Warren. In light of all the chatter about “electability” here’s why you should join me:
• Elizabeth will fight for better government, social justice, long-overdue green economic policy, health care, and a stronger, enlarged middle class.
• Elizabeth’s plans support basic humanist values, creating a large “tent” for women, children and minorities, including LGBTQ and the disabled.
• Elizabeth is an intellectual who has proven herself capable of collaboration and modification to create sound policy – she’s an effective activist, not a “wonk”.
• Elizabeth will not back down or be run over by Donald Trump.
• Elizabeth is not soliciting wealthy donor or PAC funds during the primary campaign season.
• It’s time for women AND men to get behind a candidate who challenges the status quo and the traditional hierarchy with a collaborative, long-term orientation. That candidate doesn’t have to be a woman, but of the current field, Elizabeth is the best choice.
13
@Colleen Morrissey These early primaries are where Warren and Sanders need to shine. Warren isn’t going to fare well in the south or midwest. California is going to be a split with Bernie at best. The road to the nomination for Warren is extremely narrow and she needs all the victories that she can get. Every third place finish is a wasted opportunity.
There are plenty of former MA people in addition to those who commute from NH to MA so Sen Warren is no stranger to the state. Alas, in addition to her usual antagonistic attitude toward the financial folks, Ms Warren has tried to outmatch Bernie with his populism. That is a mistake. MA may be liberal but the state is more pragmatic than true believer. Both Democratic and Republican governors can thrive here so long as they don't go extreme.
To be clear, I voted for Ms Warren my senator but I would not vote for her as my POTUS, at least not the primary anyway.
2
I'm supporting Bernie Sanders but Elizabeth Warren is my second choice I won't vote for any other candidates for POTUS.
I think Warren in the Senate (as Senate Majority leader pushing Bernies agenda forward is what I really picture Elizabeth doing for the next four or eight years and then running again for POTUS in 2024 or 2028 for 12 or 16 years of democratic socialism!
1
Warren has 30% less support among men in New Hampshire likely voters compared to the three B's (Umass poll 24/7). That difference easily puts her out of the top three. She does send microagressions towards men in her speeches. It's a quirk that most other female politicians carefully avoid, including Klobuchar, Clinton and even AOC - for good reason.
4
Spin much?
"...after turning in an unmemorable debate performance and making no major mistakes"
This has got to be one of the most negative frames if a candidate's debate I have seen yet. Each time she spoke you could get a clear understanding of the issue at hand, and she consistently ties her answers back to the fundamental changes she wants to make to improve the US. Every time. Her current approach as a unity and anti-corruption candidate are making it hard to make effective attacks, but as a woman in the stage that may be a positive, given the media at large's predilection for labeling passionate women as shrill. She has a tough lose-lose choice that I'm not sure she can overcome, but I think it is important for all Dem primary voters to remember:
YOU CAN VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE YOU REALLY WANT IN THE PRIMARY! ELECTIBILITY ARGUMENTS ARE INHERENTLY FLAWED! THE CANDIDATE THAT WINS IS THE DE FACTO MOST ELECTIBLE!
End of rant.
25
@Chris Thank you!
2
@Chris Yes! Love this comment.
1
It's not hard to see why she's lost this race. Her college debt forgiveness plan makes no sense to all the millions of Americans who paid for their college or the workers who didn't go to college.
10
@Mark
"We all had to shoot ourselves in the foot to get a college degree; you need to shoot yourself in the foot too!"
It's really crazy that this is an actual stance for some folks, and I'm not even going into the massive increase in education costs today vs just 10 years ago, let alone what grads of the 70s, 80s, and 90s paid.
7
So why is Bernie leading? He has a similar debt forgiveness plan.
6
She has a plan for everything except one that works with voters, especially come November.
5
I'm in Florida and mailed my ballot for Warren yesterday. So no mater what happens in NH or SC, I'm still for Warren!
15
Voters don’t want to be lectured, they want to be lead and reassured. The democrats may still be able to use intellectual arguments against each other in the primaries, but the general election is going to be about charisma and messages of hope. Warren would be a great president but Bernie will bring home the election.
4
@Perfect Commenter
Yeah.
OK.
Good.
Charisma.
I was an early Warren supporter inspired by her knowledge and work on bankruptcies and corporate malfeasance. Even when her Medicare for All plan took flak, I only felt sorry for her because I felt she had moved left to compete with Bernie. As a numbers person, it was not her natural turf.
What put me off since then is her foray into identity politics and amplification of twitter mobs’ attack lines- Gender identity, illegal immigration, anti-ICE, etc. Again, it’s not her natural turf, so she sounds phony and desperate. I found myself moving away from her.
4
Yes, corruption is rampant in Washington!
More so now then ever since Trump became president.
Trump not only didn't drain the so called swamp, but filled it with all manner of reptilian vermin that ended up resigning for bilking taxpayer money for personal use.
Big Pharma and corporate influence in running Washington is a major concern.
But these rants it rings hollow and get monotonous to hear!
Because Warren in her ranting does not instill any desire to storm the so called "Bastille's" of our political day!
By comparison; issues that raise a heightened sense of reality-talking about how the cost of living is rising, by comparison to that of what is deemed to be a living wage! The so called -"meat and potatoes" kitchen table issues, Warren doesn't really explore!
When Warren launches into her tax on the wealthy-or, corruption in politic and Big Pharma! That is when all bets are lost.
Know one really believes Warren alone can beat-BIG PHARMA! AND POLITICAL CORRUPTION!
Warren is floating in the ethereal and seemly doesn't have her feet on the ground.
Warren only opens the kitchen door a wide enough -to mention childcare, and other options - to back into her tax plan on the wealthy!
Even if by all accounts her ideas may work -they are too philosophical for the present political moment.
1
@Robert Kamerer
Your thoughts remind me of the never-ending debate about healthcare in America which has been haggled about for almost 100 yrs. without any real resolution.
The reality is, given a chance this President and his Republican cronies will proceed with completely dismantling the social safety network along with environmental protections in America.
Desperate times need desperate measures and the time for "tinkering around the edges" on major policy decisions like healthcare, the environment and other important issues is over. You don't have 20 yrs. to think about it anymore, America's time is up.
1
How about talking about the candidates actual positions on ISSUES, instead of all these tabloid-like, side-issues about campaigns and all the poll du jour discussions?
Aren't the major issues facing the nation and the candidates' positions on them the "real" story of the elections?
11
Warren will not be the nominee simply because it is extremely hard for women to break that glass ceiling in America. Before you see a woman President, you will see a black President, a reality TV host President, a gay President. Women have it very hard to make it at a higher position whether is it in the corporate or in politics. HRC was the most qualified woman thus far yet she couldn't make it. Amy is an impressive, realist candidate yet you don't see her name up there with Pete, Biden or Sanders. How did Pete become more successful than Amy or Warren? What are his credentials other than being a smart guy who is multilingual? Compare him with Amy or Warren and convince people how is he the top 2 candidate? Many of us will vote for whoever the nominee is but lets be real and accept the fact that it is hard for women to make it to the top political rank.
205
@ALN presidential candidate Warren: “Whenever I meet a little girl, I say: ‘I’m running for president, because that’s what girls do,’ and we pinky promise so they’ll remember.”
8
@ALN
Hillary's loss was due to her corrupt track record and her terrible campaign strategy. If you think she only lost because she was a woman, then you didn't learn the correct lesson from 2016.
51
@ALN The majority of the American people voted for a female candidate for president less than four years ago.
59
Her avoidance to answer the debate question about raising taxes on the middle class w.r.t. medicare for all and the follow up attacks from Pete Buttigieg were the beginning of the end and she never recovered. It took her weeks to respond to the hits with ways to pay for it without raising taxes. However, it was too late and the public moved on and also people don't care about policy details. She should have been prepared for that question, it wasn't a curveball and its unnacceptable to walk into a debate without a satisfactory line prepared. Its also not enough to respond weeks later with detailed policy. This wont work against Trump.
5
Warren should have been a contender. She's energetic, knowledgable, and highly engaging. She also had considerable party and media backing. But her prior claims of Native American ancestry, coupled with her inability to explain how she would fund Medicare for All, made Democrats suspicious. Yet her biggest misstep was leaking a private conversation with Bernie. Whether or not Bernie actually said that a woman would have a hard time beating Trump, most Americans viewed her attack as a cruel betrayal.
4
Why did you publish this the day of the New Hampshire primary? If she did poorly, it would make sense for me to read this tomorrow, but I feel like the New York Times is putting its finger on the scale.
My sister and brother-in-law made up their minds last night. One switched from Bernie to Elizabeth and one decided to vote for Elizabeth after much thought. Both got to listen to her in the past few days and have listened to other candidates.
Let the voters decide based on their experience, unencumbered by the label of "loser" this article appears to hang around her neck.
23
Poor Elizabeth thinks peppy = youthful, that cheerleader fizz is going to spark a ‘movement’like a rally gal populist.
Alas- her tone lacks the gravitas, calm, reassurance many voters crave. It’s not so much about gender as atmospherics.
Her definitive policy stances are - asCarville suggests- mistaking being right with winning.
6
@Sara I think the true pity is that valuing winning over being right.
1
@Lia B : Real Politik is not idealism, alas. The People are too frazzled to scrutinize complex issues. Is that democracies fatal flaw in a modern overstimulated tech world?
1
Warren and Sanders are similar. They both have no sense of humor. They come off as... excuse the express... they come off as nags. And nags are not going to beat Trump.
8
This is breaking perfectly for the guy who crushed Trump in the Rust Belt exit polls in 2016--Bernie. Warren is crashing just in time, while leaving the moderates to cancel each other out, with the help of Bloomberg after SC. Because the moderates have now shattered Biden's lead with blacks in SC, as Bernie comes on ever stronger with young blacks too, the SEC primaries will not be able to dog their usual work for Wall St. Dems of conning Southern blacks into voting for the candidate of the rich and blocking any hope of the economic progressivism blacks need more than any others. As the genius David Pflouffe warned last night, with Bloomberg coming in on Super Tuesday, his timing is perfect for keeping ANY of the remaining moderates, including him, from getting over 15% of the CA vote, threatening to give Bernie a yuge sweep there, and in other primary states with the same minimum of 15% to get any delegates. Bernie will demolish Bloomberg's electability fantasy in MI that day as well. If you can't win in the Rust Belt, Dems, fuggedaboutit. Finally, the new Quinnepeac Poll demolishes the hysteria jinned up by the fat cats who've owned and operated the Democratic Party since 1992 that Bernie will be crushed by Trump. The reverse is the truth. Bernie beats Trump in a landslide by 8%, the same margin as Biden, and virtually the same as Bloomberg's 9%. We all owe Bloomberg a yuge debt for spending all those millions attacking Trump. Thanks, Mike.
3
Speaking as a Bernie supporter, that shouting man was incredibly rude and shames all good people.
I still hope for a Bernie/Elizabeth ticket. The only person I hope is not on the ticket is Mayor Cheat.
4
She is just not likeable. It's that simple.
She comes across as cold, robotic, has zero charisma. She smiles but it doesn't seem genuine, like she's been told to do it. A millionairess complaining about millionaires. Doesn't ring true because it isn't. People aren't stupid.
No matter what her policies may be, or that she allegedly lied about her ethnicity to take advantage of the Harvard admissions criteria. It is not because she's a woman, or woke, although that doesn't help. I don't think this is a gender issue, using tired old ideas that women will vote for a woman because she's a woman. Some will, but most won't because we are clever and choose rational criteria to determine these things. Millions of women voted for Trump.
She will soon suspend her campaign, probably after SC, along with Biden.
6
To my liberal and progressive friends who support Warren just remember she endorsed HRC in 2016.Opportunist snake in the grass
5
@Gdk Bernie endorse HRC in 2016
1
@Gdk
It should be noted, along with her choice to endorse HC and not Sanders(whose policies she was more in line with)was done strictly to not incur the wrath of the establishment within the democratic party. This was further exemplified when shortly after she chose to endorse Sanders over HC, Tulsi Gabbard had no real alternative but to resign from her position as the co-chair of the DNC and she has continued to receive that wrath from within that same group to this day.
The DNC is a totally corrupt, undemocratic institution that must be hollowed out from within and built back up again. I believe many within the progressive movement became somewhat disillusioned with Warren whom, unlike Sanders, chose to waffle on her ideas rather than stay committed to her principles even if it meant disaffection from the party. I am afraid she just didn't have the guts to do it and it has since cost her dearly in support.
2
@ Deus
Yes, well put.
Her slanderous plan to paint Sanders as sexist backfired monumentally, resulting in record contributions to the Sanders campaign, crashing of the ActBlue donation site by people wanting refunds for their Warren contributions, and exposure of CNN as fake news (to those who hadn't come to that conclusion long ago).
Warren knows of only one kind of democracy, and that's bourgeois democracy with laissez-faire capitalism.
She is another "Hope and Change" candidate - i.e. she's selling a false bill of goods for the election season, and as soon as the election's over, she'll go right back to her lifelong record, which is what again? A Republican for most of her life? A slap-on-the-wrist regulator of Wall Street? A 'pragmatic' servant of the status quo?
2
Here is, I think, the big problem for the Democrats in the campaign, whether it’s Warren or one of the other candidates like Bernie. People don’t like Trump. He’s an outrageous vulgar, narcissistic, sexist, racist liar. But for a lot of people out there, he hasn’t hurt them enough personally to want to go to someone they think is going to make too radical and unfamiliar changes. They want change, but they first want a change in personality, and along with it, policy changes they’re comfortable with and feel they understand. Warren’s changes sound unfamiliar whether the substance is or not, AND, for those voters, will those proposed changes help them individually in a meaningful way? Yes, get rid of Trump, but are these changes for the good of the country also going to be good for me?
@Science Teacher But people do like Trump. He became POTUS because people liked him and he connected with them.
He will very likely do the same again.
People do not like Warren, whatever her policies may be. Thats terminal.
4
Warren has problems with too much certainty and not enough listening. What Democrats do not need is a far left candidate, which will keep independent voters, particularly moderate conservatives, from voting for the alternative to Trump. She is too adamant about her healthcare plan, simply not listening to 150+ millions voters who do not want to be forced into Medicare for all. She has a habit of not answering questions but repeating her life story and her platform. She fails to own that she was a Republican and consultant to corporations before morphing into a Democrat.
The notion that a woman can't be elected president is more theory than reality. But this woman isn't the one to do so. Klobuchar could do it because she is a moderate, rational and has an admirable record for getting things done. In an anyone but Trump election, middle of the road will make it happen, far left will not.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
1
The critical actual fact is to get that tweet shrieking thing out of the White House.
I’m not surprised writers are on the fence about Warren. Two weeks ago she was a NYT favorite.
This will change again.
In the meantime, how about the bad hair on all the male candidates?
5
Warren is brilliant. I hope she’s not too intelligent to be electable. Wake up, America.
13
Warren is a congenital liar, from her phony Native American ancestry claim to get into college, to her role as a big time, big earning corporate lawyer which she now tries to cover up when questioned about it on the campaign trail. Her plans for Medicare for all would lead American taxpayers to the poor house. She is one step below Bernie Sanders on the socialist scale. She is unelectable, as is Sanders.
7
I love Elizabeth Warren and would like her to be president. She has my vote.
But she seems to be making the same mistake that Hillary did - appealing to intellect rather than emotion.
“Big structural change” is not inspiring. It’s wonky.
How about “big meaningful change” or “change for the better” or “big changes, big results” or “big changes that will make YOUR life better”.
160
@Shiloh 2012 there is nothing wrong with appealing to intellect rather than emotion. Look at what Trump’s appeal is: emotion pure and simple, granted it is negative emotion, but it is still emotion. People emotions can also be accessed through good rational discourse, and I’d like to see more reason than emotion when it comes to navigating the perilous waters of this world.
16
@Shiloh 2012 -- I think this is a misconception which is based in part on slanted reporting such as this one. I just received an email appeal to donate from Warren's team: "Fighting from the Heart". THAT is my perception of her, and THAT is what's so ABSOLUTELY lacking from the current administration and many other career politicians who only care about money. "Fighting from the Heart" UNITES intellect and emotion.
29
She has policy chops. That's what I love about her. But the DNC will make sure no nothing Pete or Bloomberg gets the nomination
12
I believe Elizabeth Warren is absolutely the best candidate in the race for the Democrat's party nomination. She is thoughtful, hard working, has proven again and again her determination and ability to succeed. And, most of all, more than any other candidate running against her, believes in the utter necessity of working with others to find solutions to problems and is willing to concede when the majority of others differ.
But she is losing the race. And I don't know if it is because I am at fault for not seeing one of the other candidates as the better alternative, or because other voters are just not able to see the strengths I see.
12
I love Warren, but... “She reminds me of every best teacher I ever had,” he said.
Right there is why she will lose. America cannot stand someone who is smart. A nation with your healthcare and gun laws and the electoral college that voted for GW Bush twice and Trump once (so fat) is a nation of dummies.
11
The Warren candidacy feels like Hillary redux. They share similar affects, student-council resumés, and probably sincere ideals, but the political skills are flat.
5
Yes, Elizabeth Warren is a strong, smart, bold, engaging candidate, as many have pointed out.
There is little discussion here about the real reason her candidacy was doomed from the start: her agenda proposes a radical social - economic transformation of America: open the borders, and give them all free health care, tax down the rich, and corporations, spend trillions on social programs.
Remember why Trump was elected. Americans are not ready for such a revolution. I support Warren, but would never vote for her.
4
I know many who were supporters from the start, until her bad faith attack on Sanders. Now they’re voting for him.
She has come off as very fatigued in recent weeks. I suspect it was not really her idea to attack Sanders, but rather some “super smart” campaign manager who had the straight-out-of-Barnard-undergrad idea of offing Sanders with the gender card. She also listened to Republican-lights in the MSM about dumbing down her “socialist” angles.
Put it together and I suspect she’s not thrilled with herself. Ultimately she is a woman of actual principle and conviction.
3
I think that all Democrats, no matter whom they favor in the primaries, agree that the most important thing by far this year is to defeat Trump in November. Elizabeth Warren has been, overall, tremendously focused on that, emphasizing the contrast between her plans and present policy. The Democrats really endanger their overall advantage in the general election with this in-house fighting. The « circular firing squad » continues apace. Please, candidates, concentrate on the enemy!
8
My wife and I are democrats and will both enthusiastically support whomever faces Trump in November. We also both appreciate Warren's detailed economic, health care, regulatory and environmental policies. However, while making dinner last night with the PBS News Hour featuring several of the democratic candidates in the background, Warren's voice came on. My wife's immediate reaction was "that preachy voice...she will never win." I unfortunately agree. These gut level reactions matter, and there it is.
8
@Mountainone
Sadly, this is a perfect illustration of (one of millions of) double standards. Trump has an extremely ingratiating voice and is a terrible speaker, but it would never have occurred to anyone to dismiss him because of it.
9
@Michigander I agree with you, but I stand by my analysis of Warren's ability to defeat Trump.
I think you meant an irritating voice?
1
Steady as she goes! There will be ups and downs. Time to get a little more focused and crisp on the messaging. "Big structural change" can be reframed as "fairness." She's done that. Everyone else has not. And Bernie just kvetches about it.
For all those who whine "inauthentic," look in the mirror. We all have much worse personally, and certainly every politician does. This is a 4th grader's game... or Trump's. It takes high-mindedness to get beyond the schoolyard bully tagging.
We want the best candidate possible. Someone thoughtful, smart, compassionate, knows how to get things done... Warren's the one.
9
"They cite what they see as a double standard in her treatment as a female candidate, observing that male candidates are less often held to account over squishy policy details or minor missteps, while also choosing to believe in Ms. Warren’s gentle reminders that “women are outperforming men” in some recent competitive elections."
Unfortunately, this is the filter through which every issue must pass in today's Democratic Party, and why Donald Trump's predatory political instincts have proved to be effective. People like Trump are only too happy to highlight the divisive ridiculousness of Democrats' attempts to shoehorn a social justice crusade into every issue, small or large. Most Americans reject and resent the identity grievance imperative of today's Democrats, but sadly there seems to be no end in sight for the party's current march toward political self-immolation.
3
I wish Sens. Warren and Sanders would make a pact to support each other and unite progressives. Until recently, they seemed to be doing that.
In 2016, Warren endorsed HRC. Big mistake.
3
Vice news reported large groups of people leaving the AOC/Sanders rally in Venice and same in Iowa according to Gothamist. So a few people leaving a gym in NH is not any more worrisome.
6
Elizabeth Warren as President of the United States will be the most wonderful change from the tragedy of Trump. Elizabeth likes dogs and kids. She has a host of well-thought-out programs to lift up America's middle-class families. Elizabeth is a level headed thinker as opposed to the stable genius (not). Elizabeth will save democracy and the American dream for our children and grandchildren. America needs a woman President. The men have failed us.
9
What stands out the most from the "debates" is that nobody asked the most important question, at least the most important if your goal is actually to defeat Trump:
"If you are not the Democratic party nominee, will you nonetheless support and campaign enthusiastically for whoever is the Democratic candidate for President?"
The Republicans cannot reelect Trump. Only the Democrats can do that and, unfortunately, that is precisely what they have been doing. For starters, Democrats will have to immediately stop with the circular firing squad routine, the only thing they have been adept at all year.
Second, they have to stop lecturing and start listening to voters. Unless you respond to people's values and needs as they define them -- not as you believe they should define them -- you will change precisely no one's mind.
Aspirational politics are useless, actually counterproductive, in the current sociopolitical environment. In the Washington of January 2021, we will need a person who actually knows how to govern in a divided government. And one most likely to beat Trump to get there.
The Democrats need to quit defining anyone who supports Trump as the Devil, whose very thoughts are contagious and fatal. Either interact with them and change minds/votes or lose.
To win, Democrats must be laser-focused on the objective of defeating Trump, not on what "category" is due a turn at the Presidency. They must understand this is an election for President, not an election for God.
2
The important thing for Senator Warren or any of the other candidates who consistently fail to poll in the top tier over the next few primaries is to then say 'no' to their political ego and quit the race. Typically this happens when the money dries up, but trying to struggle on when you're not winning, and there's another radical liberal in the race that's beating you (Senator Sanders) is pointless and will only damage the eventual nominee. It is inevitable that only one of either Sanders or Warren will survive after the Super Tuesday primaries in March and there's no hope for them to pretend otherwise with arcane political strategies.
1
To the NYT: I recently heard someone making the point that choices entirely within the control of even the most legitimate of media have an influence on political outcomes more than that media would like to admit. In that vein, is it possible to interpret an article with this tone being published _the morning of a primary_ as doing anything other than amplifying groupthink and electability concerns, rather than letting election outcomes inform those electability concerns directly? It's essentially saying "today is a day where you can vote for Elizabeth Warren or other people. By the way, support for Elizabeth Warren is waivering." It reads like a pre-mortem, except that you are accelerating it to fruition.
8
Were Elizabeth Warren a man, she'd be hailed as a brilliant candidate, and the most approachable - yes, even likable! - candidate in quite some time.
Yet, here we are - voting has barely started, yet journalists (overwhelmingly white + male) are already writing her off. At the same time, they're running multiple pieces about the 4 B's: Bernie, Biden, Buttigieg + Bloomberg. Am I the only one getting a whiff of misogyny?
7
@BerkeleyGirl The Native American debacle would have sunk most men long ago. One of Biden's previous presidential campaigns tanked because he plagiarized a speech, much less an entire ethnicity. Warren's been treated with kid gloves.
1
I’d like to follow up on the commenter whose sarcastic viewpoint on the column highlights the typical malaise of modern day politics as dport.
If you peel away the superficial hype and “data analytics” and look at the responsibilities of the job of POTUS, the experience, knowledge and skills as a public servant at a national level than the field narrows rapidly. The fraudulent Presidency if DJT acts as a deceptive false narrative of “look, anyone can be President”. No, we see in Red, White and Blue anyone can’t be President.
Sanders, Warren, Klobucher, Biden, Bennet and Weld (DJT dies not qualify; Bloomberg nearly qualifies).
Save Bennet, the smartest ones with the deepest policy and operations knowledge are Warren, Klobucher, Biden and Weld.
There’s a good reason the Times was undecided between Warren and Klobucher. Either would be great widely appealing to a large audience and would drive the Human Stain nuts in F2F debates. The idea of being beaten by a woman is the Ultimate humiliation for him.
Warren is no where nearly as extreme as she is being portrayed. She smart, sharp, quick, strong, informed and has the right background (raised in the Midwest, former Republican, educated). Warren, Biden, Klobucher are the three best options.
Go Liz
4
Seems, like Biden, Warren can't take Iowa or NH for granted, either.
1
I agree with others that Warren would be best president of the lot. Also agree this unflattering article is confusing, considering recent endorsement.
It’s not too late for Elizabeth to use more of what’s in her arsenal - like her rockin’ bod. A great stylist should be employed, a smartened up look in keeping with her future on the world stage. Hillary mastered this towards the end of her candidacy, but she lacked the dimensions Elizabeth has in spades.
3
Like it or not, one way or another, the Pocahontas tag stuck. She was never the same after that - blame Trump, or blame her for how she handled it. It’s a shame.
2
I don’t know anyone who thinks that her ancestry claim is wrong.
Only pundits in newspapers or on tv, see a DNA test or being proud of it, as somehow, “wrong”.
No actual human people who are not in media, see anything wrong in being proud to be American and exploring the tapestry of identity that makes up our melting pot.
3
@American
Actual human people who are honest on their diversity question see plenty wrong with pretending to be Native American to get a leg up. And she did get a leg up by pretending to be Native American.
1
@American
Yes, it’s sad to see how the right-wing spin completely framed the narrative, even for NYT readers.
1
The premise of this article and what it leaves with the headline-skimmer is annoying. Warren has a passionate fan base that will turn out for her all the way through primary season into the fall - whether she wins NH or not.
3
The claim that Warren could ever be a unity candidate is a joke.
She's almost as divisive as Trump, and America is fed up with that.
Use water, not fire, to fight fire.
Wall Street would like Warren out because she's demonstrated a capacity for original thinking and she knows their racket. And, it is a racket: drag the suckers (the middle class) into the casino (the stock market) and play the inside track paying dividends to the rich.
The other candidates are in on the game, like Biden and Bloomberg, or are compliant like Buttigieg. They will promise to roll back tax breaks for the rich but someone pretend it's just too darn hard. In the old days, that might have been enough to win a second term.
Times have changed. People aren't waiting for a second term. They want someone who will go around obstacles. That candidate is Liz Warren.
496
@Rocketscientist
"The other candidates are in on the game, like Biden and Bloomberg, or are compliant like Buttigieg. They will promise to roll back tax breaks for the rich but someone pretend it's just too darn hard."
That is not true, and is presented here without any evidence at all. It is baseless, divisive, counterproductive. All of the candidates agree on the same broad general aims including taking back the tax-cut-for-the-rich. I agree that Warren is wonderful. The more I learn about her the more I like her. And, frankly, I like her for some of the very things that the Sanders progressives are pillorying her for. Yep, she was once a Republican. Yep, she knew enough about corporate law to do bankruptcy law for the biggest. Yep, she once took big donations but has decided not to do so now. She has always been an advocate for working class Americans, poor Americans, middle class Americans. She has always been smart. Make America smart again.
[This is my second attempt at posting this reply.]
16
@Rocketscientist
"The other candidates are in on the game, like Biden and Bloomberg, or are compliant like Buttigieg. They will promise to roll back tax breaks for the rich but someone pretend it's just too darn hard."
That is baseless, divisive, counterproductive. All of the candidates agree on the same broad general aims including taking back the tax-cut-for-the-rich. I agree that Warren is wonderful. The more I learn about her the more I like her. And, frankly, I like her for some of the very things that the Sanders progressives are pillorying her for. Yep, she was once a Republican. Yep, she knew enough about corporate law to do bankruptcy law for the biggest. Yep, she once took big donations but has decided not to do so now. She has always been an advocate for working class Americans, poor Americans, middle class Americans. She has always been smart. Make America smart again.
[Third attempt to post this reply. Puzzled about what's up.]
5
@Rocketscientist
It's telling how you generalized "the other candidates", while there's a candidate whom the Wall street hates other than Warren. His name is Bernie, and he's a frontrunner. But you conviniently decided to forget about him in your "other candidates" monologue.
15
What I'm about to write about Senator Warren, I write wholly with respect (after all, she's an outstanding American). Early in this race, in fact, until a month or so ago, I counted Senator Warren on my short list of Democratic candidates. Unfortunately, she's no longer on that list.
Senator Warren is well-versed in the needs of lower- and middle-class Americans; she's sharp as a whistle on the staggering number of issues (policy needs) that must be addressed in Do-Nothing Trump's wake; and she's clearly honest, passionate, and professionally as well as personally invested in her platform.
What Senator Warren has come to lack, for me, is that less "quantifiable" -- yet nevertheless important -- quality of the best presidential candidates: being presidential.
Senator Warren comes close, but for me, repetitive chatter spun in increasingly gee-wiz undertones keeps getting in her way (and in mine).
3
And yet in the WH right now we have the most unpresidential of presidents in the history of the US.
1
Elizabeth Warren never had a chance to begin with. Her past actions decided that long ago. She was in the running only because there are also, no other viable candidates running against her.
1
Not sure how far Elizabeth Warren may go in this race - it's up to all the primary voters - but her voice, her vision, and the issues she raises should continue to be heard throughout the race. I'm mostly a moderate but I find Elizabeth and Amy the most inspiring candidates in the race. So, I've just given (again) to Warren's campaign and to Amy Klobuchar's campaign. Small amounts, again and again. Also, I'd to us all to rewrite the narrative on women in politics (and women in business, and women in the arts, etc). What if a woman's point of view, for all the reasons that make women different from men, is actually a good thing, a positive thing, a productive thing, a visionary thing, a practical thing - in many cases more useful than a man's point of view on a whole range of subjects. Exhibit A is Nancy Pelosi, fantastic and formidable. The men have been holding the presidency for more than 230 years, (and kept the vote from women until 1920). Isn't it time we find out what a woman can do as President? Either Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar in The White House would be fine with me. You think they can't win against The Donald? Well, it's up to us; let's give it our all. We can make it happen.
7
I think Warren's biggest mistake was going in for Medicare For All - this put her too close to Bernie, when it could have been the big difference between them. I was hoping she could be the bridge between the 2 factions of the party - I think her reluctance to be more practical on this critical issue now prevents this.
4
Ms. Sanders fell in to the classic primary trap of being pulled too far to the left by the more extreme members of the party. When she was talking about kitchen table issues (income inequality, student debt, raising the minimum wage, etc.) she was doing well in the polls, and for good reason - these issues are important to the majority of Americans. It was when she began advocating for open borders, providing free healthcare to people who came here illegally, and abolishing employer provided health insurance that she doomed her campaign.
3
@rs
That's not "falling into a trap". That's just not knowing what you actually stand for in your campaign. Bernie Sanders knows that, and hasn't budged since forever.
Warren has lost her footing because she never had secure footing in the first place.
Once Buttgieg came along with his "medicare for all who want it", and look at me I'm such a nice *young* gay Christian, her position was in danger.
Instead of centering herself, she resorted to more desperate and ridiculous tactics. Calling Sanders sexist. Saying that a trans high school student would approve her Secretary of Education, etc.
2
Not one candidate is for “open borders.” That is a right wing talking point. Also, free healthcare for the poor (including the undocumented) could only happen once a new system is in place for everyone — which sounds good to me. We all pay more when people go to emergency rooms because they can’t afford a simple doctor visit.
1
@B. K.
When you're defending an ICE raid meant to deport a person who was convicted of assault and already deported once, what are you arguing for, if not "open borders".
If undocumented convicted criminals don't deserve to be deported, then who does? Anybody?
Thanks so much for using your substantial platform to write off the candidate in third place and for letting us all know for the umpteenth time that she can't possibly win. You could have used your platform to educate voters about her substantive policy proposals, or to compare her views and qualifications to those of other candidates, but where's the fun in that?
31
I agree with a reader that Warren is the author of her own fall, but I blame it on her mandated Medicare for All. Americans might not want something initially -- but they become vicious if you try to take it away (see the response to Obamacare). So while they might not love their UnitedHealthcare or Blue Cross or whatever -- to suggest it will be taken away is insanity. Some people took jobs just for that private health insurance. Warren has come a long way and made tremendous strides. The best thing she could do is backtrack, make it optional (period) and say -- I hear you. I won't be the kind of president that doesn't hear you. And hope it's enough to regain her mojo. Leaving the smaller, more homogeneous states, she has a brief chance -- and then she'll have Mike Bloomberg to deal with.
10
Elizabeth Warren was an extraordinary regulator. She has served well in the Senate. I have been heartened, saddened, and horrified by her increasingly cringeworthy performance as a presidential candidate; her bizarre attack on Justice Roberts during the impeachment trial, echoes her bizarre attacks on her Democratic rivals.
Warren swims well in her own lane. But being president is like being captain of a soccer team - working and playing well with others while keeping your eye the ball and thinking ten moves ahead.
And when 'holier than thou' is your brand then truthiness is not a good look.
6
Back when the whole Pocahontas name-calling was happening I thought Warren was finished, but she was just getting started. I for one will disregard all the grumbling and negative speculation and vote for the candidate I believe in. Let the chips fall where they may.
8
There are two candidates on the progressive left: Bernie and Warren. Bernie makes the better case
5
Again, it is ridiculous to have Iowa and New Hampshire determine a presidential candidate. This process needs to be changed.
17
Warren must drop out and drop her fantasy of being appointed the “unity candidate” at a brokered convention where she trails badly in delegates. It’s not going to happen.
6
NH voter here. I'm voting for Elizabeth. She's got the chops and policies to back her ideas. Don't count her out yet. #Warren2020
16
Attacking Bernie was the death knell for her among progressives, dumb move. So she pivots to the "unifier", except a senator from Mass. is not seen as that by the Democratic base. Klobuchar fills that much better, even the mayor. Despite the quite overt support from NYT and MSNBC it's not going to happen.
4
Based on the photo associated with this article is Warren now attempting to associate herself with 1968 Olympics protest?
Basically she attempts to stand for everything, which boils down to stand for nothing...
7
One botched unrepresentative caucus over and a second small white state primary in progress today, with many more to come, and the NYT is already hanging crepe on one of its previously (as in a month ago) endorsed candidates? And on the day of a vote? No matter who you’re putting in the crosshairs, can’t you see how distorted this temporal picture is? I feel like I’m in some alternate universe, with winners and losers being announced before anything has even happened by way of real people voting. This isn’t democracy. It’s mediaocracy.
21
The more people see of Warren the less appealing she becomes. A privileged elitist who plays the victim card in every situation. A back stabber, a manipulator, opportunist, fraud. Perhaps she will get the message when she loses to Bernie in MA.
8
As Joe would say " Come on Man ", who the heck wants their hip grandmother to be President. Don't get me wrong, I like her, only not as the President of the United States.
She is too prim, too stiff, too unnatural. That episode with the beer was unforgettable, as were the DNA tests and the lies on college employment records and then further lies to explain the unexplainable.
Sorry Elizabeth, no soup for you.
12
“It’s up to you...Massachusetts?” So now we have not one, but two, Bidens in this race. No one can do a circular firing squad like the Democratic party elites.
4
"Ms. Warren has made no major mistakes,"
Disagree, I believe her idiotic attack on Sander's vis-a-vis a woman's chance of winning the Presidency killed her chances with many. Her numbers started tumbling that day.
10
Warren is the best person for the job. She has my support. Obama lost NH and went on to win the nomination. This year will be a slog for delegates throughout the US. As Bloomberg enters the race in the larger states, and Biden falters, and Bernie’s health becomes an issue, Warren may well win.
14
Less ‘news analysis’ than more evidence of the press’ short attention span. Let’s pay more attention to the serious concern s in this race: a billionaire’s attempt to buy the nomination, and the Democratic establishment’s entrenched resistance to anything outside the mainstream.
11
Like Iowa, New Hampshire is not indicative of the country, It is 93% white.
How are reporters and pundits calling Warren's campaign over when we don't have results from New Hampshire and Iowa's results are rigged (Iowa captains are all over the media saying the results they turned in differ from what was reported).
Warren is the only candidate to beat Trump.
Warren is the only candidate with the vision, intelligence and strength to turn this country around and take it away from the tax dodgers.
18
Who knows her better than the voters of NH, many of whom are refugees of her home state. That's why today is so important for Liz, a poor showing, like Iowa, will mean she is done and funding the run will dry up. She could always lend herself money, but that is not likely, and her dream will be over. After all you can't out Bernie, Bernie, there is only one original and the people who are far left want the genuine article. He r big mistake and one that Bernie won't do if actually tell the people the real price tag of her health care plan. When he was asked about it he said "I don't know what it will cost" and apparently he doesn't care to find out. That is music to the liberal ears. Just give them the red meat and figure out the rest after you get in office.
4
She lost me with her Impeachment question about the Supreme Court and Justice Roberts. What was he supposed to say? We should change the Constitution? Should he have said yes Trump is....?
She would still make good banking regulator, but I don't want her as the Democrat Candidate.
5
The bottom line seems to be that Warren is falling because she's not a good politician (mishandling the Native American issue). Ironically it was her having a plan for everything that did her in (fumbling M4A).
So it will be Bernie against the boys: Biden, Buttigieg and Bloomberg. I think it will come down to Bernie against Biden (neither "stop and frisk" Bloomberg or Buittigieg polling at 0% will get the black vote).
(It's possible Warren or Klobuchar will catch on, but doubtful. It's disappointing, but even Democrats aren't sure they want a female president.)
Bernie against Biden. Bernie has the energy, the passionate following, his ideas are popular. Biden has Obama and name recognition. It's a tossup.
3
She will make a superb Supreme when the time comes. From my fingertips to Bernie's ears.
5
“She reminds me of every best teacher I ever had,” he said.
I agree. I was educated in the NYC public school system, and any teacher that holds a memorable fondness for me was very much like Elizabeth Warren.
I've always thought that she should use that to her advantage, and not be afraid of giving more details when it's appropriate. Many people believe that the average person does not want too much information, but that is a shortsighted view of the American public. I think that they would appreciate this more than being "dumbed down" or being subject to the same old stumpy talking points.
Nothing against the instructor qualities of Amy Klobuchar and Bernie Sanders, but Warren strikes me as the teacher who recognized my positive points and gave me a chance. The others, not so much. Not sure about Biden and Buttigieg---I just don't feel a real connection to either. Bloomberg seems all business, like he has a job to do---what it is exactly is yet to be discovered.
I like Warren, but I have a feeling Sanders will start picking up a lot of steam. If Warren can stick it out until the end even if it looks dim for her, she can give her delegates to Bernie so that Bloomberg doesn't wiggle in with his super delegates, because I honestly think that he will not get the minority vote. It's not all about white suburbanites, there are minority suburbanites too.
5
@duvcu I will vote for whoever, and the "Bloomberg super delegates" will only be an issue if there is a 2nd round of voting, which is why it may be important to supplement Bernie's total in the 1st.
1
It's unfair to single out Elizabeth Warren. All the Democratic candidates are hopeless, including Bloomberg (whose shadow candidacy is about to be sunk by an overtly racist audio clip from 2015, to the effect that 98% of violent criminals are young male minorities). The race is over before it begins. Hopefully there is a Bill Clinton or Barrack Obama already preparing for 2024.
2
@Richard Unfortunately that was true. The high crime rate in minority neighborhoods was not caused by Whites from where I live, Upper East Side, going to rob in Harlem. As Mayor it was his duty to protect all citizens unless you are saying he should have ignored minority neighborhoods.
2
Top three or four finishes are no reason to be concerned after two states. Let’s see what happens in NV and CA. The last one standing of Sanders or Warren will instantly double their polling numbers. I hope this is Warren, she’s younger and has more implementable ideas.
Also I’ve noticed a NYT bias against Warren. No one expected her to finish 3rd in IA. Yet beating out Biden was disappointing?
11
I like her, and wish she would play some role in the new government. But I just don't think that far left is the place to be in this country. It's like the Democrats are tone deaf to the country. And just like with Hillary, they simply don't get that being so far left is not a positive for moderates who want to beat Trump. But I'll vote for her or Bernie or even Amy for sure if they are nominated. I'd even vote for Bloomberg and hold my nose if he's the one running against the worst politician in history.
3
I am extremely disappointed in the NYT for running this headline. Warren outperformed her polling in Iowa, is tied for third nationally, and has a strong ground game in NH. These headlines impact voters and contain significant bias.
20
I USED to be a huge Warren supporter. Wanna know why she lost my support? Because she snitched Bernie out that “a woman” couldn’t beat Trump. 1. Who knows if it is even true? 2. Even if true it was obviously a private conversation. 3. It was a cheap shot early in the primary season. Liz snitching out Bernie is when she began plummeting in the polls so I assume many former Liz supporters feel the exact same as I do. Nobody likes a snitch and/or backstabber. Just like Warren fell for Trumps con by “proving” her Native American ancestry, she has once again been her own worst enemy by denigrating Bernie.
#sad
2
If it comes to Sanders versus Trump perhaps The New York Times will endorse Mr.Sanders, and should he win the election it would mean the disintegration of this country. The only great thing about Sanders is his age and his health.
2
I think she just needs a brief break to catch her breath. She goes at the challenge before her with such intensity it wears me out. The selfies thing is cool, but it adds hours to each appearance.
2
I am not a Warren supporter since I will vote for whomever the democratic party chooses to beat Trump. But, articles like this make no sense. The primary season is long and the path can change at any given moment. I hardly think that that Iowa or New Hampshire which lack diverse populations can decide this whole thing. This is all spin let's wait and see what happens as other states have their primaries.
15
Senator Warren is by far the most qualified candidate. "Mayor Pete" is not presidential material. I live in a small city which is very close in population to South Bend Indiana. The mayor's office rotates among the city council members. They are all nice, intelligent people in basically unpaid positions. But they can't even fix the roads or the homeless problem (both of which are fixable). They are certainly not ready to run the country.
Biden and Sanders are too old. I don't have an opinion about Klobuchar. Perhaps Bloomberg's strategy is to overwhelm Trump with advertising. I doubt any of this will matter. Trump will be re-elected if the economy remains stable.
8
One of Mrs. Warren's campaign slogan is to fight. But when it comes to explaining her differences with specific rivals, she cowers, not wanting to hurt the other persons feelings. That's not fighting, that's giving in. Someone can explain their differences without hurting others. Too bad, I liked her ideas.
1
I strongly support Ms. Warren - she is quite articulate, extremely knowledgeable, very bright, and sufficiently personable, but I don't believe she can win the nomination because in this campaign many unfairly criticize her because they say she does not look presidential. In the 1960 presidential debates, Nixon's poor showing was mostly attributed to his appearance. A number of my politically aware and left-leaning acquaintances, who enthusiastically voted for Hillary Clinton, unfortunately discount Ms. Warren because, unlike Ms. Klobuchar and Hillary Clinton, Ms. Warren does not wear a suit, and hence, according to them does not "look" presidential. I am shocked at this ridiculous attack, but I must admit that I see their point.
1
Yesterday, a neighbor, male, Democrat, attributed Warren's slide in the polls to her being, among other things, "strident." I, myself, believe she is "strident" at times. I have no problem with that. And I don't think my neighbor does. He'd gladly vote for Warren over Trump. But Americans, even many Democratic Americans, do not like "strident" women. Bernie Sanders is daily "strident." Of course, our National Ape is "strident." Warren is also sliding because of her lack of a firm position on healthcare-for-all and, unlike Sanders, her failure to admit its true cost. But back to "strident": When will Americans grow up?
8
Really? Take my pick of out of touch seniors? Among the three geriatrics Ms Warren is not Bernie-ish, or fondling every female within reach, so she does have that.
Honestly I would vote for the super in my building before Ms.Warren, he is far more in touch and practical. But then again I would vote for anyone other than Trump. Ms. Warren is however about as exciting as an old gray sweater my girlfriend keeps begging me to throw away.
3
For a paper that endorsed Warren, this article does her quite the disservice.
29
Warren was on top until she got specific on Medicare for all funding and the wealth tax, and followed it up with a slower transition plan. She wanted Bernie’s voters but didn’t have the stomach to run on a “socialist” label. She lost voters to both her left and her right.
Bernie is the real change candidate, and Pete is the establishment answer to demands for change: vague promises of new ideas that will lead to a worse version of Trump, if you can even imagine that. I’d rather have Amy than Pete’s baloney.
5
I never tire of quoting author Richard Reeves who wrote, "When Carter became president, he thought being president meant you were the manger of the government. When Reagan became president he knew being president meant you were the leader of the nation."
Warren, as Democratic hopefuls in general, don't realize they are running to be the leader, top dog, not a technocratic functionary. A technocrat, like Warren, runs on an issues agenda. A leader runs under a banner. Here's a a good banner: Make America Great Again! Want another one? How about "Mike Will Get It Done!"
Banners excite the imagination, create enthusiastic followers, rally the masses. A laundry list of issues, grievances and complaints does not.
8
Warren just comes off as a politician. She doesn't seem sincere. Everything is wrapped in a phony "aw shucks" demeanor that makes most people cringe. Look no further than her beer drinking video from 5-6 months ago where she feigns surprise that her husband would be in his own kitchen as she downs what looks like is her first beer ever. I'm sure it wasn't, but if that's the vibe she gives off to this lifelong Democrat how do you think she comes off to the swing voters she needs to appeal to?
6
I think this article on the day of the N.H. primary screams misogyny and negativity, finding little pieces of events or responses that reflect poorly on her or her campaign. She is by far the best candidate, will unify the country, and inspires me every day. Her inclusive leadership, boundless energy, visionary policy making, compassionate kindness, morale courage and uplifting optimism are exactly what I want to see in the White House. I cannot wait until November when President Warren cleans up this mess!
7
The media seems to be pushing for Sanders, which is strange since they endorsed Warren. You'd think the NYT would get behind both Warren and Klobuchar and talk about why they're the best candidates-in my opinion they are as well-instead of writing endless articles about how they're not doing well. Here's the reality: The Trump administration having already dirtied up Biden wants Bernie to be the nominee and I think it's clear why. If Sanders wins the nomination I fear we get Trump again for 4, 8, 16 years, who knows. Please, no more old, white men.
5
Shame on the Democrats who discuss Warren and Hillary in the same sentence.
Shame on the Democrats who say, "I think Warren would make a great President, but..."
Shame on WOMEN Democrats who are not giving Warren their full support.
Shame on the press who cuts Warren from their coverage and talks about Warren in the past tense.
Warren is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who absolutely guarantees to fullful her promise and all of you are folding.
12
@KAB Warren has already flip-flopped on many of her position, not least of which is Medicare for all. Guarantees? I don't think so. Also, trying to shame women into supporting another woman just because of gender is sexist. It didn't work for Hillary and it won't work here.
8
this and the general media coverage of Senator Warren's life and campaign are a showcase of media bias and negative tilt-starting with the picture chosen for this piece and the headline, subtle as a sledgehammer--she isn't the media's choice; the NYTimes should be beyond this, obviously they are not; still she persisted.
5
Warren is doing better than Biden. Where's questioning of Biden's chances?
12
If the reported results of the Iowa caucuses are accurate (though there seems to be substantial reason to believe they aren't), much has been made of Pete Buttigieg's one-tenth-of-one-percent "victory."
But that has more to do with the media's news cycle need to declare "winners" than with the reality on the ground.
The fact is that a combined 44% of Iowans chose Sanders or Warren, i.e., 44% of caucusing Iowans want someone to the left of Buttigieg.
We will soon see if a similar outcome prevails in New Hampshire, but it's clear to me that Sanders and Warren are splitting the progressive vote. At some point, one of them should withdraw and support the other. I see benefits to the nomination of either of them, and also hazards to the nomination of either of them. But that's true of any candidate.
The Current Occupant is so vicious, corrupt, destructive, and incompetent that I will, of course, vote for whomever the Democrats nominate.
But I think it's delusional for anyone to believe that a cute gay guy with a cute husband is going to "fly" with those parts of the country where people are apt to quote the Bible as support for their political positions. And when I say "the parts of the country," I mean, in terms of Electoral College weightings, most of it.
3
“She reminds me of every best teacher I ever had,” he said.
The man who said this, was likely a very good student. Ms. Warren reminds others like myself who were not such good students of their stereotypical school teacher, enthusiastic, efficient, but very difficult to satisfy.
I think her enthusiasm and efficiency have overpowered her charm, and her plans of every kind have managed to smother the warmth people really want from her.
She comes off to me like a person who is always thinking how to respond with a brilliant answer, rather than listening and watching carefully for people's feelings to show.
Don't get me wrong, I would vote for her plans in a second. But I fear she might not be able to beat Trump AND flip the senate, which is half of the long game this time.
After three year of Trump's monumental insensitivity, people are looking for a little love and kindness. Amy Klobuchar may have that kind of appeal. We'll soon see.
5
I came into this election cycle with high hopes for Warren. Unfortunately, despite her extraordinary policy-making credentials, she's made misstep after misstep in the execution of her campaign. The peculiarity is that she's not nearly as aggressive as Sanders - I see more ideological similarities between her and say, Pete Buttigieg than I do between her and Sanders, particularly as they relate to an underlying thesis about how free markets work (and should work).
While her policy-first approach is admirable and impressive, the reality today is that such minutiae are not an effective narrative in a primary campaign. Additionally, if you believe the argument that how you run a campaign is an effective proxy for your organizational and leadership style as a president, her choices (opportunistic pivot to Medicare for All, which has undoubtedly backfired) suggest that she may not be the best fit for the Presidency. Combined with the historical baggage (peculiar ancestry claims, unfortunate corporate law record, etc.), it's hard to see how she could effectively contest a general election against Trump. Regardless, she should continue to have an elevated role in policy-making in any democratic administration.
I believe that sexism is absolutely alive and well in our politics, and has contributed to her decline as a candidate. However, above and beyond that, I believe choices made by her campaign have ultimately damaged her chances far more than any latent bias.
4
Warren broke the secret code of bankruptcy laws before Yang understood technology. Warren has about 100 times the experience of mayor pete. Warren put her money where her mouth is in Washington when Biden was playing politics with people's livelihoods. Finally Warren has had a much longer, harder career in the real world - the one where people have to show up to work, manage childcare, compete with colleagues for promotions, the real world that most of us live in. Bernie is a lifelong career politician with lofty magical goals and zero willingness to detail their viability. Warren destroyed Wells Fargo duplicity in Congress and created CFPB. Finally the only candidates with some claim to on the ground experience and credibility, immaterial of policy positions are Amy and Bloomberg.
But by all means, the "paper of record" is reducing itself to the likes of cnn and msnbc in discussion of theater over content.
23
Elizabeth Warren is great - as a Senator. We need to keep her in the Senate.
7
She placed 3rd (we think) in Iowa but there seems to be a concerted media effort to avoid any coverage of her or her supporters. Glad to see NYT at least put her name in print, though I wish it had been in a more positive light. I suspect her focus on corruption is so threatening that the powerful are making her disappear, in contrast to the inexperienced neoliberal who gets far more press than he reasonably deserves.
14
@Laurie
If the "powerful" are "threatened" by her, why aren't they also making Bernie "disappear"? He's strengthening in the polls, and is even more extreme than she is.
Truth is, most of the powerful would love it if one of the two of them became the nominee. They are very good at exiting the progressive wing, but would have a far harder time winning the general than Biden (or even Bloomberg).
Trump would love to run against Warren.
I like many of Warren's ideas, admire her spunk, but her momentum is gone, sapped by her pleading, schoolmarmish demeanor that is distinctly unpresidential. Senator, for the good of the party, please drop out now and endorse a qualified candidate who can Dump Trump-- Bernie Sanders or Mike Bloomberg.
5
I know Ms. Warren is a brilliant person but I personally find her shrill, condescending, and hypocritical. I have never really understood why she is as popular as she is. Ms. Klobuchar, on the other hand, seems like the type of reasonable, sensible, intelligent candidate that could actually unite the party and defeat Mr. Trump. The fact that she is from the middle of the country and not one of the so-called "elite" areas is also a huge plus. I think a Bloomberg-Klobuchar ticket would be ideal.
2
If at any point, we could dispense altogether with the word “shrill”—unless we want to use it for Sanders—it would be a tiny step toward dismantling the utterly gendered commentary on these candidates.
3
@AnnaT Didn't mean it as a "gendered" statement, just an assessment of how she has come across in the debates. I know plenty of "shrill" men too.
1
One way to win "unwinnable fights" is to cheat which is what Ms. Warren did when she falsely labeled herself Native-American.
For anyone who doesn't believe this helped her career, please tell me how many other Rutgers Law School grads have been made professors at Harvard Law in the last 50 years.
My problem with Warren is that plus her being a libertarian Republican through the Nixon and Reagan administrations. I have to question the judgment of anyone who didn't see something wrong with their policies at the time.
3
@Steve
Elizabeth Warren is by all accounts a brilliant woman. Your accusation that she cheated — with the “proof” being that she’s a Rutgers grad — is disgusting.
2
Warren is by far the best candidate to turn things around and bring the democratic party back to the middle and working classes. Biden and Booty are both corporate democrats, and Sanders is so very old, crotchety and divisive, as much as I like his progressive ideas. We cannot continue to elect democrats who talk a good talk but never deliver to the working class.
7
Another third place finish which appears more than likely may doom Sen. Warren's campaign. It's sad because she has the spunk, intellect, and experience, but just couldn't compete with her rival on the left, Bernie Sanders.
2
Ah yes, let’s blame Warren’s decline as a sign of misogyny. Let’s not focus on her alliance with Sanders and failure to stand out independent of someone who is more well known as she. Oh, don’t focus on her consistent failure to answer questions posed to her during the debates. Warren only knows to pivot to her own message. I may not like Sander’s answers but at least he answers in the context of his campaign.
Could it be that she peaked too soon?
3
The tipping point was all the headlines about the $20 trillion/10 year cost of M4A.
If only she had quickly responded that we'll spend at least $37 trillion on medical care this next decade without covering everyone anyway (and probably more). That was a huge and avoidable messaging error.
2
ENOUGH. Warren beat biden in Iowa and performed better than her polls showed, but somehow an insignificant state's mess of a caucus, followed by another insignificant state's decision is enough to derail the best campaign and candidate out there? Every news outlet is sounding the death alarm of her candidacy despite performing better than expected in Iowa. Instead we are putting all our hopes on a crazed "socialist" who got nothing done in 20+ year in the Senate except for help derail the gun-control movement in 2005, and a mayor of a tiny town who literally is unemployable in the private sector.
11
Fight fight fight fight. That gets tiresome! People are craving transcendence and release instead.
1
Rather than find an excuse for Warrens's sinking, couldn't it just be that nobody thinks she could lead the country?
I'm comfortably on the left, and have warmed up to Klobuchar. Gender and race don't matter, it's the content of her campaign.
Details don't excite people, as Trump has perfectly demonstrated.
3
The idea that Warren is held to a different standard because she is a woman is sheer silliness...a cop out if you will. First and most important, she has allowed herself to be caught between Sanders and Buttigieg and there is never room in the middle; she is in the uniquely bad position of having to outdo Sanders as a flaming socialist, and Buttigieg as voice of reasoned principles. Second, she has become strident and this does not sit well with someone who is trying to position themselves as a liberal policy wonk. And third, this DOES relate to her gender, Warren has made it very clear that she will be the President of Women, and there are not enough votes to elect anyone, regardless of gender as the President of Men or the President of Women. We need a President of the United States, a job that has remained unfilled for a long time.
1
You guys sure know how to pick a winner. Klobuchar and Warren are neck and neck for what 4th or 5th place? You needed someone strong, like Trump, not all these wimpy people who apologize to everyone including the earth, and get 9 year olds trans children to pick the education secretary, and want the American taxpayer to pay to open the borders. For most Americans, ALL of these nominees are completely unpalatable. I'm glad we realized which side has all the revolutionaries ready to tear the country apart, because it looks like Bernie is going to win it all, unless the DNC stops it in the most anti-democratic way possible. You should have refused socialists, but you realize that has always been democratic policy to tax into oblivion, at least now you have someone who admits it. I think that's why Bernie will at least appear the strongest, because he admits the awful things he wishes to do to this country.
4
Warren may still make a fine Vice President or Treasury head in a Sanders administration.
2
I liked the old E.W. In many ways the new Elizabeth Warren is a repeat Hillary Clinton. Constant shifting and shaping on what she thinks will sell rather than just being who she is. People see through that.
That coupled with misappropriating another race and then trying to back into it weird DNA math. It must be an east coast elite thing.
5
I've been supporting Liz but will be thinking strategically when I vote on Super Tuesday. She needs her rev up her campaign again or drop out and throw weight behind a 2nd best (for me that would be Bernie).
2
She's my Number One choice.
But she has made 2 mistakes:
1) She gave details on her health care plan. If you paid attention, her numbers added up. But that was too complex. So, no one else has given 'details', just her - and she will pay for that sin according to the MSM.
I have asked people to explain the stands by other candidates and all I get is a blank look. They have no idea what their candidate's position is on anything.
That's what happens when your nation is Number 60 in the world's standings: Give no details.
2) I've worried for months on the hours that Warren has put into the "Selfies".
She needs to be focused on policy - or even getting rest or down time. The Selfie Matter is not sustainable and it drains off her energy and she needs that energy to fight back, to keep fresh.
I've already sent in my California primary ballot.
I voted for her, Warren, simply because I think she understands the numbers the best.
Sorry, but I don't have a clue what Pete's position is on anything --- and neither do you, if you are honest.
Bernie?
He's not even a Dem. Why is he in this race?
Joe?
No.
Amy?
I can't get over the salad-comb.
Bloomberg?
Suspect: A 35-page booklet of women bashing.
And, then there is Tom.
A good choice for Vice-President to Elizabeth.
And so was Julian Castro, Inslee........
4
The Democratic candidates are a silly lot of unelectables. Bernie and Warren are too left wing to gain the votes of Democratic middle-roaders.. A woman is not electable this round anyway nor a too young gay man. Biden has certainly not captured the public eye.
The only possible electable candidate is Bloomberg who has stayed out of foolish squabbles and (having been major of New York) puts forth a sensible program for America’s future.
1
Articles like this are gratuitous. Maybe it would be more fitting as an opinion piece.
Remember what the press did to Hillary Clinton?
Elizabeth Warren is running. She has strengths.
When there is actually some news here to report instead of massaging your ego over how astute your powers of divination are, your words will be more credible.
5
I am reading a comment right now that says Biden was afraid to challenge Clinton in 2016. That is an incorrect statement. Biden was too sad about the loss of his son. He needed to grieve. This mean-spirited attitude is a symptom of this election. We see it in the reporters' disrespectful questions being asked of Biden. We see it in Warren's attacks on wealthy people, rubbing her hands together when Dulaney revealed that he had earned many millions of dollars. We see it in Buttigieg's petty youthful statements, in Steyer's foul-mouthed anger.
Warren lost her bet when she lied about Bernie. The resulting firestorm has burned her campaign to the ground.
She was already in shaky ground, her math was so terrible she could not add 2+2, yet she kept coming up with 5. How? Every economist (except Paul Kruger) would add up her freebies and come up with a number so large it was hard to imagine, yet she kept saying the same would cost a fraction of that. How to pay? Take away the money from the rich, but even Bill Gates proved 95% of his fortune was not even 1% of her budget. Yet she continues to add to the tally of freebies she wants to give, paid by us via tax increases to Europe levels (65% of income). The she got endorsed by the New York Times, just like Hillary.
When she lied about Bernie she scared away the middle ground, any progressive who was not with her, and ensur3d the Bernie people would never join her should he falter. It is her modus operandi, lie to get ahead, call her self a minority to get into college, career and government.
She’s on free fall. And her faithfull only want her, and no one else.
What a mess she has made. Bye bye Warren.
3
Warren seems to be having trouble with the leftwing purists. She cannot pass their litmus test. Meanwhile her move to the left has hurt her with moderates.
Perhaps she demonstrates the problem with trying to dance with the left, in general.
3
Liz Warren is the author of her own fall in the polls. That moment when she decided to "expose" Bernie Sanders as a sexist. Of all people she could have gone after for legitimate reasons, she picked her friend Bernie, without warning. This was the man who encouraged her to run against Hillary Clinton in 2016, and when she declined, he went ahead and lay his head on the block to save the party and turn it back into a progressive party. Not only that, but she accused him in front of a open mic of calling her a liar. During that same debate, she touted her loser male opponents as being inferior to her fellow women candidates who won races for congress. You don't have to be a genius to figure out what the consequences would be for such behavior...alienating Bernie's vast number of supporters and yes, doing the same to male voters and male candidates.
223
@Stephanie Rivera It wasn't the smoothest move, but this isn't her problem. She just hasn't found a way to fully connect with voters. The detailed plans are almost an impediment. Yes, we want policy, sort of, but more than that we want to connect with a politician. Klobechar is connecting, finally, and yet she is being consistent, same with Mayor Pete, Biden, not so much. Bernie is a politician who has always had a cult of personality. The man has had a following for years and his popular books (around 20 now) keep him connected with his base, and made him a millionaire. I think Warren's positive message has mostly been lost in her policy woking. It just doesn't sell. She needed a stronger overall "vision" emphasis. I think she is the nest candidate. The sharpest. And the one who could deliver real structural change-- maybe even "change you can believe in."
28
@Stephanie Rivera I do not believe that Warren lied. I also do not believe Bernie is that sexist. Because it was so odd for both of them, I wouldn't have brought it up. I would guess Bernie said something along those lines but didn't mean it as it came out. We all have moments of misspeaking we wouldn't want exposed on national TV. But I'd wager Bernie said something that sounded like....
49
@Stephanie Rivera you got your facts all wrong. CNN ran a story based on what Warren privately told people in 2018 about her conversation with Sanders. Sanders decided to respond publicly and personally in the most inflammatory way possible. He had the option of not responding or responding in a milder manner, but he chose to call her staff liars. She replied in the most polite, conciliatory way with actual praise for him on other fronts, but affirming that yes he'd said that, trying to tamp down what he'd lit on fire. And it says a lot about the state of gender in this country that that's seen as her aggression.
76
The media continues to dictate who is ‘in the race’ and what the issues are. That’s unfortunate.
I think Warren is the best choice for President. She has progressive ideas along with the practicality required to get things done.
I’ll be voting for Elizabeth Warren in March, and hopefully in November.
16
Elizabeth Warren is a truly amazing woman. Brilliant. Determined. Energetic. Unfortunately those qualities are not quite enough for her to be able to win the presidency. She lacks political intelligence, a refined form of social intelligence. This one shortcoming is evidenced by speech patterns hinged on words and phrases like "See", "the thing is," , off- putting repetitions that may work well in a law class but to the general public seem like that dreaded characteristic in a woman: Know-it-all-ness. (I get this because I am a smart, determined, energetic woman.She should have an action-oriented top-think job in the coming Democratic Administration, maybe Attorney General or Secretary of Treasury. but not VP. The winnable presidential candidate should be an experienced moderate and that person should cut a public deal with Warren before Super Tuesday. If we Democrats had a working team for six months, we could turn 2020 election into a historical return to normalcy.
3
I'm so disappointed that the NYT has published this opinion piece today. It's almost like they're trying to sabotage their own endorsement of EW, or trying to "walk it back" as they say nowadays. Why? This whole opinion piece, and the comments so far here, are mainly about electability, not policy or ideas or character or experience. I'm so sick of hearing about electability. It's nothing but a guessing game and by focusing so much on it, the media is only confusing voters more. NH voters, all voters, should vote for the candidate that they feel is the right one for America today, not just today's best guess about the one most likely to beat Trump. No one can predict that this early, especially as we still have to take into account the outdated rules of the Electoral College which made Trump president despite losing the popular vote to HC.
I'm going to proudly vote today for Elizabeth Warren because after careful study of all the candidates, and consideration of their policies, their missteps, and their histories, I believe she is the best hope for us at this time. My two sisters will do the same in their NH towns today. All three of us will, in the end, vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is, just as we did in 2016. As then, it will not be with quite as much excitement and joy if our first choice is not on the ballot, but make no mistake, we will do our part to avoid a second term for the current president.
28
Warren has a plan for that, except on the debate stage where she whiffed an entirely predictable question about who pays for her plan. Yes it's a higher standard, since others just propose without a plan, but that was her brand and her response was not a good look. She let herself be framed as the female Bernie for too long and did a poor job of distinguishing herself from him. When she did produce a plan for a longer roll out of "Medicare for all" in response to hearing worries about a sudden "revolution," her campaign failed to highlight this as a virtue of one who listens and responds intelligently to voter concerns and she got slagged by the left and by the right as a flip flopper. And I think unlike the Times readership, many voters were/are just confused by the Dem pack of candidates and tuned out all those plans. Her campaign seems to lack the flexibility to keep up so now they are stuck. Which is too bad because all those plans? some of them are pretty great.
1
Enough with the Native American ancestry claim, who of us is told, through passed down stories, that we are one ethnicity and then it's "proven" that we belong in another category. I have a feeling her family felt and possible still feels that part of their lineage was Native American. She wasn't trying to deceive anyone. She truly thought her family story was true. So, regardless of if she's 100% or .02%, this is what she felt. So wait her results from 23andMe.com should knock her and her strong ideas about fairness and justice should knock her out of the running. Come on now. Please.
5
@East Roast
I understand what you mean. I too thought I had Native American in my blood, but testing proved otherwise. But then again, I never discussed outside of my family or bragged about it to my friends. It makes me wonder why candidates are so anxious to boast about their heritage. We should be judging the person, not their anscestry.
3
@East Roast
To be a member of the DAR you have to prove that you are a descendant of someone who was involved in our struggle for independence. What percentage of that ancestor’s blood would be in someone today? Certainly less than EW’s Native American ancestry. Yet, their claim — to American Revolution ancestry — is true and correct. As is Warren’s.
Bernie will need an active, empowered VP who travels the world and represents the US as much as he does, given his age. And being a veep under him may lead to the presidency well before 2028. I think that's the smart battle for her, because if Buttigieg wins the nomination, picking a racial minority VP is not even a question.
1
I see a lot of gut reactions to Elizabeth Warren, and not as much about her platforms. I think that’s why she will not be nominated. There’s something abut her people don’t quite get, don’t like enough. I don’t know what that is — but I feel it. Maybe she’s trying too hard? One-on-one with reporters she does fine, lets her authenticity show, but not on stage. I’m sad about this because I’d love to see a woman in the White House. And we NEED a Democrat in the White House.
1
It saddens me to see the Warren ship sinking. I believe her to be the smartest, best candidate there is with unfortunately what now seems to be a fatal flaw: she speaks her mind. She has espoused several policies such as getting rid of private health insurance, reparations for black Americans, and decriminalization of illegal border crossings that are anathema to too many voters.
Yet front-runner Bernie Sanders supports these same policies and that has not seemed to have hurt him yet in the primaries; the presidential election could prove to be a different story.
I would hate to think that the difference is one of gender but I don't know what other conclusion to draw. Warren has been frequently described as sounding "angry." She is.; we all are. Bit it's not meant as something positive. But who has ever seen or heard a more irascible candidate than Sanders? But with him it's supposed to be part of his appeal. Jeez.
12
Sanders voters would do well to consider who they want, given that he is not going to be the nominee. The majority of democrats (not the "establishment" democrats or the "corporate" democrats, but the democrats) will do almost anything to stop him. One must presume they would prefer Warren to Bloomberg.
Buttigieg/Biden democrats would do well to consider who they want, given that their guy is not going to be the nominee. Could go over to another billionaire dictator. Or they could throw their support to an actual democrat.
I agree that she is at a rough patch in the campaign, but Warren will be an effective leader. If we don't have a candidate who can promise real change, odds are, the death march will continue.
4
@D.R.F. Sanders has a much better chance of being the nominee than Warren does, what makes you think he's the one who should drop out? No, it's Warren's supporters who should start thinking seriously about their second choice, and if you like Warren's policies then there's only one candidate who fits the bill: Bernie.
Warren (and Bernie) are both hypocrites. Both transferred $10 million from prior campaigns where they raised money from rich donors, and now they want to double standard and deny Pete the ability to compete with them by raising money that way too? No thanks. Pete’s the only middle class person in this race. While Warren (net worth: $12 mil) and Bernie (net worth: $2.5 mil) try to cast him as some Wall Street lackey, I’ll take Pete (net worth: $100k) who is married to a schoolteacher and actually lives like I do.
5
@IntentReader Why should a social Democrat condemn himself to poverty? It's not like monasticism.
Making a few million by age 70 is a normal expected outcome for smart graduates from top colleges.
2
@Audrey: earning wealth (and raising money from the wealthy under our current campaign finance system) is totally fine, problem is Bernie and Warren (and their supporters) are trying to cast Pete as a feature of Wall Street, when they have funded their campaigns the same way and are actually far more wealthy. That’s called hypocrisy.
3
Her anti-business, hate-capitalism campaign only can evoke emotions from a minority amount of voters for only so long. Which is why she had to start her, "Medicare for all" idea which eventually sank her. Number one, it is fiscally and politically impossible. Number two, 60% of Americans have commercial health insurance and likely are hesitant to go Medicare. She's toast.
6
@Not 99pct
It is not impossible, neither fiscally or politically. And it’s the right thing to do. Do we not care about the millions of uninsured? My family will gladly exchange our good employer-provided health insurance for a Medicare system that covers everyone.
3
@Not 99pct
She veered left and it hurt her. The big question is whether she can adapt and move to the middle. Obama started promising "line-by-line budget checks" to attract moderates. She doesn't seem to have the ability to pivot like he did.
2
@Stephen in Texas Trump couldn't even get minor healthcare changes done when GOP controlled both House and Senate. How do you expect Warren to get Congress to do 180 degree change in US healthcare with only the House? Even if she had a slim control in House and Senate it would be impossible because most Dems in Congress are moderate not socialist. Fiscally it isn't possible without raising taxes signficantly on everyone, including the middle class which she denies, and that's when the steam ran out of her campaign. She's semi-delusional on her ideas, or people realized she's pumping everyone full of hot air on an ideas campaign.
So tell me again: How many times, in the last 50 years, have Iowa and Vermont determined eventual nominee??
Warren is highly unlikable and can't win the presidency. Her best fit is a cabinet position perhaps in a future administration. Stick a fork in her campaign - it's done.
9
Isn't it a bit early to declare winners and losers in the primaries? Apparent and early frontrunners often have a message with an expiration date--"best if used before." This primary is no exception.
That doesn't apply to Elizabeth Warren. Of all the candidates, her legislation record has been the most competent to help the voters to whom she's appealing. Her regulations on the banking and finance industry have helped so many people in ways too many ignore or don't even know helped.
The voters may ignore her record, but when the less qualified candidates who prevail try to implement their program, they'll wish they had Warren's intellilgence and insights.
4
Frustrating to see the choice of anecdotes to support the narrative of a Warren fade - as someone who was at the rally, alternative stories had the choice of frame been different could have included the detailed answers Warren gave to the large number of audience questions, the fervent conversation in the ladies room line on Warren's authenticity, or the number of attendees like us who rolled out directly to campaign offices to knock on doors on a snowy evening. Not any more or less representative than what's covered here. Elizabeth Warren has run her own race throughout 2019 despite the narratives that she wasn't catching on, and is continuing to show the integrity and principles that brought her to the race.
12
Racism and religious fundamentalism were always there but it became one of the main driving forces in electoral politics in the country.
There is always a social hierarchy based on race, gender, religion in American society. White men are the top tire- attained Godly status. Then come white female, then others according to how those two top group view them- again based on race, gender, religion (or not having one).
When a white women talk about gender equality, they mostly talk about becoming equal to white men. They hardly like to give the same status to black or brown men or women.
Just look at this Democratic primary now. There is no black person left. The only Broan/Asian person is expected to depart soon.
Now think about a candidate who is Black, woman, either Muslim or an atheists! US is still decades behind to get such a person elected as a President, even s/he is outstanding.
1
All of you boomers talking about how we better not nominate Bernie because he's a socialist should reflect on the socialist benefits you've received in your lifetimes. You were born and raised in an era of strong unions, big government programs (establishment of medicare, medicaid), housing help through the GI bill and rent control, big government spending on our infrastructure like the interstate highway system and the space race, low-cost, high-quality education via public colleges and universities, etc. etc.
The millionaires and billionaires funding Buttigieg's campaign have also benefited hugely from socialism in the form of corporate welfare - and if he gets elected he'll give them handouts left and right.
The millennials and zoomers would like some socialism, too. If you want to beat Trump, nominate someone who will make a difference in the lives of young people, like Bernie, who is polling best of all the democrats against Trump (even after everyone knows he's a socialist). If you want another term of Trump, nominate a centrist again, and lose to him again. The choice is yours!
7
In the fall, when Warren began looking like the frontrunner, a curious thing happened: all the media outlets began carrying stories about how some Americans think other Americans won't elect her because she is a woman. What effect do you think these these stories, which are completely overblown (see Hillary winning the popular vote), has on the Democratic electorate at a time of extreme anxiety? Then, the Times runs this article -- on primary day, no less -- which is completely lopsided and negative, portraying her as a losing candidate, when her poll numbers in New Hampshire and other primary states tell a completely different story. The final line -- about a Bernie supporter yelling rudely at her from his car -- says a lot about the dynamics here, but the toxicity of these "Bernie bros" has somehow escaped most reporters' notice. Warren -- a pragmatic Progressive -- is by far the most capable and best positioned to beat Trump, and those of us who support her have to keep calling out this irresponsible media treatment. We can elect the most capable presidential candidate -- who, in this case, is also a woman -- but it will be a lot harder if the media keeps putting its thumb on the scale and pandering to the bigotry in this country.
25
I feel that the Times has, at different points, carried damaging stories on all candidates. While I wouldn’t call NYTimes an unbiased news outlet, they haven’t been on a crusade against Warren either. If anything, they endorsed Warren and Kloubachar.
If you haven’t noticed, the paper hasn’t been kind to the likes of Tulsi Gabbard. Denying them airtime, denying them news articles, just harping on her Assad history. She is a person of color (Samoan roots) but still people say there is no person of color left in the race. I mean, it’s one thing to discredit a person but it’s an affront on a completely new level to just ignore and sideline a person.
Why? Because she said impeachment was a waste of time? It is. Even the establishment democrats knew that. They wanted the witnesses not to impeach Trump but prolong the process. She says the modern democrats are out of touch with a common american. Is that wrong? Bernie says the same.
People like Cory Booker, Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard have done nothing but try to play a fair game. And what have they got for it? Insidious claims that they are hidden assets of Russia. Well, we need to look no further than Iowa caucus fiasco to demonstrate that the democrats are themselves to blame. Today, the nominees were more divided than ever. I’m not sure if the others will concede defeat properly when the time comes. There will just be too much bad blood.
In addition to changing the order of the primary contests to make early primaries more representative of the nation, the televised debate process is equally terrible. I’ve never heard so many irrelevant questions strung together between fomenting insults and favoring candidates with greater name recognition. How about just straight on interviews with all the candidates? Good candidates like Michael Bennett are never given a chance to emerge in the media biased debate format. Questions are designed to avoid issues like climate change or drug prices to avoid offending advertisers. And the whole process is structured by a Democratic Party leadership trying to predetermine the outcome . They all need to go. It’s time for a big change. I can’t believe that despite the last election disaster we still have the Clinton’s Democratic Party running things.
3
Ah, the perils of endorsing a candidate too early. The footsteps you hear are the Times running from its previous ill-judged choice of Warren as fast as it can.
8
To readers who wish The NY Times would publish more positive articles about the primary, think twice. Do you really want the Times to become a liberal version of Fox News? Where one political party receives fawning coverage and the other is subjected to false charges and conspiracy theories? Thank God for The NY Times and other papers that we can rely on to tell us the truth, no matter how unwelcome it may be. They may not get it right 100 percent of the time but at least they try. The Times is not friendly to Elizabeth Warren? Gracious! They endorsed her (and Klobuchar) for president!
Nothing about Elizabeth Warren rings true. She is a millionaire socialist who thinks people haven’t figured out how she’s really going to pay for her progressive agenda. You can get a lot of mileage (as she has done) out of the free stuff for all mantra and the disingenuous “l’ve got a plan for that” nonsense, but when people start breaking down those plans and schemes they find behind the facade the same old liberal agenda: bigger government, higher taxes, vote buying with government give-aways and more people who think they know what’s best for the rest of us.
10
Six weeks ago Trump said her campaign was over, and she will probably drop out any day now
6
No candidate comes close to Warren in capability and vision. She would actually change things, which concerns those--on the right and otherwise-- who don't want real change.
And it is dismaying that even Warren's supporters think that the DNA test proved the family stories were wrong. The Cherokee Nation decides who is a Cherokee. That's a tribal and political matter, not a scientific one. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/18/just-about-everything-youve-read-warren-dna-test-is-wrong/
4
Like Hillary Clinton, Warren is the most qualified to be president, but will lose because women are held to a higher standard than men. The only knock against her (claiming Native American ancestry) is hardly disqualifying and would not have derailed a man.
She can help Bernie get the nomination by throwing her support to him when it’s clear she can’t win. Maybe he’ll choose her for VP (although choosing a Midwest moderate like Klobuchar might be a better choice).
104
@Eric
Elizabeth Warren isn't like Hillary Clinton. Hillary was a far stronger and more qualified presidential candidate. HRC had that elusive "presidential" quality, and it's tragic that circumstances (and the Russians) conspired to keep her out of the White House. Warren, sorry, she doesn't have the same authenticity, and the voters know it, even if she was the favorite of the elitist class who tried to foist her upon us.
8
@Eric
I disagree. Biden is the most qualified. Whether one is a better candidate than the other is another thing.
9
@Eric
Remember Biden had to drop out of previous presidential run after he was accused of plagiarizing a part of speech. I consider building a career based on a falsehood, which is what Warren did, to be far worse. And Gary Hart had to drop out after it was found he lied about an affair.
So don't tell me no one would care if she was a man.
13
With no clear winner and no clear front runner, the chances of a brokered convention are increasing. That’s when delegates can select Bloomberg as the nominee. He’s the only candidate in the field that can beat Trump. He’d get the Democrats, most Independents, and many disgruntled Republicans.
5
Where do Bloomberg’s votes come from?
Are we really prepared to forgive & forget, given the stakes?
@Pragmatist in CT - sadly, I reluctantly give this comment huge creds. Many republicans would, in my view, vote for Bloomie.
@NotHowButWhy
Bloomberg's support will come from (a) Biden's more moderate supporters and (b) democrats claiming to hate white male billionaires except when it's their candidate.
Not unlike all the feminists who hated Trump for his sexual slurs but gave Hillary a pass even though she destroyed the reputations of Bill's sexual assault victims.
Democrats tend to have much higher standards for the republicans.
2
Warren clearly has some gravitas, but belittles it with constant pandering to identity groups that do not embody all the voters needed to win. It’s all ultra-liberal talking points, over and over.
7
As long as she takes votes away from Bernie, I say you go girl!
7
Senator Warren of Massachusetts has should just stay in the senate and counter balance large corporations by ensuring appropriate regulations. She should fight climate change from her position as the senator. She has 4 more more years to continue to be the senator from Massachusetts.
As a presidential candidate for the nomination of the Democratic party, Sen Warren does not offer anything more than Bernie Sanders. Not only that she is no longer piping in about Medicare for all ages leaving no signature policy other than not being Trump.
If Sen Warren were to be the nominee it will be a repeat of Gov. Dukakis performance and win Massachusetts and DC for sure but may not win even NY, IL and CA, the other deep blue states. If Sec Warren does not win NH primary, the state next to her home state then she is unlikely to win any other state after that. She should just go back to 4 more years as senator.
Of the 2 women endorsed by the NY Times Edi board, Sen. Klobuchar may surge to second place but if she does not then she may have to consider packing up. At least able Amy seems calm and collected unlike the flaky and jittery Sec. Warren.
Following NH, the dynamics of the Dem primary will see a seismic shift. With the entry of the multi billionaire capitalist Bloomberg to counterbalance the millionaire Bernie, Assuming that a 4th place Biden will graciously pass his torch to a new generation of Democrats Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and mayor Butti. DJT seems quite strong in NH
3
The reason Warren will not win the nomination in 2020 is the same reason Biden won't be the nominee. Both of them were too timid to challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016 and become the nominee then. Neither one of them dared to be the person who denied Hillary her Throne. Defeating Hillary was The Path to the Oval Office. The person, whoever it was, who notched That victory was going to be President. If Warren had challenged, she would be in the Oval Office right now. Same for Biden.
130
@GregP
'Defeating Hillary was The Path to the Oval Office. The person, whoever it was, who notched That victory was going to be President. '
You are right.
And he did.
And he's cruising for re-election.
12
@GregP - Biden's son had recently died of cancer. In order to run for President you have to be all in. Biden was clearly not able to muster the energy needed while grieving. I think your characterization of him being to timid to take on Mrs. Clinton is both wrong and at best insensitive to the reality of grief.
The other issue I have is the idea that Mrs. Clinton wasn't a high quality candidate. Mrs. Clinton, unlike President Trump, allowed Republicans to investigate her and she was forthright with the American people, testifying while being smeared by the Republican and Russian machine.
She easily defeated Sanders and Warren doesn't have the chops to even compete with Sanders let alone Mrs. Clinton.
Mrs. Clinton was a superb candidate who would have been an outstanding President.
16
@GregP 100% Agree, Warren or Biden would've killed Trump the first time around - now he has had 4 years to shape his narrative (full of lies) about how great he is and unfortunately the republicans that weren't buying it before have bought it now. Very tough for any Dem, so I am looking toward outsider candidates like Bernie to generate a new narrative, so that we don't run into 2016 again.
13
My take is that Elizabeth Warren is not a born politician. She came into politics very late in her career. She may give the impression that her campaign is not responsive enough, or making occasional rookie mistakes: it’s simply because she is not a born politician. Her life path never made it likely she would go that far. Early pregnancies, dropped out of College, went into community school: her career path has been nothing short of amazing.
But in Washington, she gets to compete with born politicians, often Ivy league educated. People with a silver tongue and and a gift for zigzaging and changing positions without any qualms or hesitations. Basically, political opportunists who are good are turning platitudes into seemingly meaningful philosophy.
The primary is too close to call and very fluid. Much attention has been paid to her (or Joe for that matter) mistakes, and meanwhile, it’s just now that Buttigieg or Amy are starting to be scrutinized more carefully. Buttigieg could not manage race relations in a small town and he has opportunistically zigzagged policy positions, and Amy’s past as prosecutor. These will be, down the road, campaign-killers. They just have not gotten the scrutiny yet.
People who call her “inauthentic” have it all wrong. Her mistakes were precisely the result of how authentic and new to politic she was. For what it’s worth, the single most inauthentic and opportunisitic candidate by far is Buttigieg. Issues don’t matter, only the moment does.
435
@R.
I tend to agree with you that Warren, while very smart and charismatic, a strong communicator and an expert on policy is not a born politician.
Love him or loathe him her rival and sometime ally on the left on the left, Senator Sanders is very good at politics.
If he wasn’t he, a man who is a party of one, would not be where he is today.
I have no idea how this is all going to play out My plan is to support my favorite candidate in a positive manner but not to allow myself to get a hate on for anyone else.
36
@Brooklyncowgi
Agreed that Buttigieg is the most opportunistic candidate, who is only positioning himself for where he thinks can win, instead of having any deep convictions.
But Warren seems opportunistic too, having refused the chance Bernie gave her to run in 2016,having supported the non-progressive Hillary against him, and then jumping onto his platform when he showed signs of being able to win with it, and trying to elbow him off of the platform he spent a lifetime building. Doesn't look pretty, and it certainly does not convince me that she's an authentic progressive.
6
@fragilewing
Warren didn't endorse Hillary until after she won the nomination. By that time Sanders was endorsing her too. She's been a progressive champion her whole time in politics and has the grasp of details that prevented some progressives from supporting Bernie back in 2016. She's also always been a Democrat during her political career, so she can dodge some of the baggage that Sanders has. I'll work to elect Sanders, Biden, or whoever the nominee is, but you can't argue that Warren isn't a progressive. Please don't put her in the same category as vacuous Buttigieg.
42
All of these comments decreeing her intelligence and plans and yet no one stops to think that the American people don’t want a technocrat, they don’t want plans. The American people want a feeling of change, that the candidate they choose will inspire a movement which materially helps them get ahead. Whether Buttigieg with his platitudes or Bernie with steadfast principals the American people don’t care about the candidate that crunched the numbers and consulted the experts. They want someone who appears genuine.
4
Warren is an academic and ideologue. While a very intelligent and capable professor and technocrat, she is just a moderately talented politician. She can easily fall into the rut of being a "one trick pony", limited by her experience in academia and adherence to ideology.
7
Voting in the FIRST primary hasn’t even started and already the headline on this story reads like a review of a failed campaign. As a former daily newspaper reporter, that sounds like the kind of editorializing I was taught in Journalism 101 to avoid. Warren has my vote because I know she will deliver the change we all crave. But if she isn’t the Democratic nominee, I will vote for whoever is. Meanwhile, I wish the NYT would stop running obituary-like stories on candidates who show no signs of illness. As an editor, I am asking the reporter of this story why comments from the “ dozens” of people leaving a Warren event were not included. Without them, this story seems off balance.
41
Warren is a rather flat-footed candidate. She is not what I would call a natural on the campaign trail. In general I like her policies, but when she turned on Bernie with that bogus sexist remark made in private long ago I began to wonder what this woman was really about.
8
Sounds to me like Liz has thrown in the towel, finally acknowledging the inevitable.
5
Bernie - another health event and he is out of the race
Mayor Pete - Talks out of both sides of his mouth.
Amy - Beats up her staff
Biden - clueless as to why Hunter is a problem, lives in the past
Steyer - He is going to out Trump Trump. Right
Bloomberg - Better buy your Big Gulps while you can. We need campaign spending reform badly.
Gabbard - I actually like her and her positions, but she has near zero chance.
Yang - Give me my Thousand, please
Leaving the best, Liz Warren. She appears at this point to be in the race for VP. And if one of those old, old guys were to win, she could be our next Teddy Roosevelt.
7
When Trump ran, he said things like, "we'll have a beautiful healthcare plan", "lots of plans, that people are going to love".
Bernie Sanders said everyone would receive great healthcare with no copays, insurance premiums , drug costs. Because it's a scandal that the U.S. is the only advanced country in the world that do this.
Elizabeth started to offer the same sort of general proposition that M4A would deliver excellent healthcare at a lower overall cost. She was immediately criticized for not detailing how the cost of every bandaid would be paid for. When she did, two weeks later, everyone said we could never "afford it".
The so-called moderates accused her of "kicking people off their private insurance". Hysteria. ( As if the city of Hartford would be surrounded by the army and federal Marshalls were going to come for your Blue Cross Insurance card. )
Not one question was asked of any other candidate about how they would pay for their plans to expand Obamacare. Not one.
Suddenly we are told that she's inflexible, intractable--it's my way or the highway. Can't work with anyone.
Two weeks later her support cratered and now people are piling on about her dishonesty and every sexist trope that surfaces whenever men can't compete with a smarter woman.
This is a person who got the President of Wells Fargo to resign, and whose brainchild, the CPP , saved millions of consumers billions from unfair bank practices.
What has any other candidate accomplished like that?
30
@John C
Sanders' supporters don't concern themselves with how things will get done. In fact, they don't seem all that bothered by the fact that most of what he's proposing will never get done.
Certain voters demand results. They will vote for Trump. Others want to have their opinions validated and their intelligence confirmed. They will vote for people who sound really great even if they have zero experience and/or are unlikely to get anything past Congress.
6
Warren's campaign had an unforced error that crippled her. I am in the camp that most male Americans are skeptical of women in power, but not opposed to it; they are just harder to sell. That is why the misstep was so back breaking for her. That isn't fair but realizing the way people will cheat you is important to winning a campaign.
She fell into the trap of getting into gritty detail of her programs. Voters are owed the explanation of how much a policy is going to cost them...eventually. You don't have to make telling them the bad news your image, especially in the primary. This is why I think Bernie is more effective at selling his high cost programs. When people try to pull him into the weeds, he pivots to the need for the program, not its price tag. Then his accuser has to say "well the coffers are more important than people's lives" or cede the point to him. Looking purely at political strategy, Bernie's was better.
Her M4A plan for example seems sound enough practically, but from purely political standpoint it is much harder to explain its benefits than saying "we are going to give you free healthcare". So Bernie lapped her in the progressive lane, and by then she couldn't claim the moderate space either.
It isn't fair that people buy into that, but nobody made her be the details candidate.
101
Warren is probably too intellectual for most people, and that’s just sad.
I am voting for Warren on Super Tuesday!
52
@ Tommy,
Bernie's Medicare for All will lower current costs, as there won't be insurance company profits to pay, or fleets of billing clerks.
7
@M Davis Me too! Nothing is over until it's over, and we've been misled by the press too many times to count!
12
Warren is smart, but made serious and surprising miscalculations right out of the gate. She tried to muscle into Bernie’s lane, which she now knows is impossible. Early on she was way too rigid on Medicare for all, and let her negative opinions of the insurance industry fog her thinking. Whereas Buttigieg has “Momentum”, Warren has “Nomentum”. I can’t see her lasting much longer.
9
Bury Her Heart at Dixville Notch.
The quixotic campaign of a specious person whose career and life are based on a lie will be emphatically ended by people who can smell her phoniness.
My kids are about 10 percent African American, according to Ancestry.com. That makes them 100 times more black than Elizabeth Warren is Native American.
But the idea that we'd use race to try to get them an advantage is not only revolting to us -- it'd be disgraceful to my wife's family members who do identify as African American. It is just not done by decent people.
9
Class warfare coupled with a “holier than thou” campaign is not going to work - whether the candidate is man or woman.
11
Warren is brilliant and it’s the NYT that keeps forgetting about the people Warren cares about.
She knows this country and has decades of knowledge and she can move this country forward for everyone
The country will miss out if she is not chosen to be our nominee
I am going to do everything to help Warren cross that finish line for the good of the country
Women stand up and roar for freedom in this country
44
She’s starting to lag behind because she’s not authentic. Never has been. She was Republican when it was popular, now a Democrat for the same reason. She made her fortune with crony capitalism guiding mega 250 companies thru bankruptcy with laws she helped rewrite, which now she claims she’s against. Of course she had the Native American false claim & lied about why she left her first job. Unlike Biden who clearly is really confused, she knows exactly what she’s saying. She tells people what they want to hear and capitalize’s on it for herself. Not only is it not authentic, it’s the same old political song & dance.
109
@JOSEPH
Warren is definitely authentic. I've followed her for many years and she is the real deal. Yes, way, way, back she was a Republican but she saw that people were being hurt and she wanted to change that and has worked to make that change. I've met her and she is passionate about her platform to fight corruption in government and help the middle class and poor economically. I love that she can explain economic issues well. We need to educate that public.
Warren warned the country about the impending housing/financial crisis back in 2005 and 2006, it peaked in 2008. I'm voting for a smart, informed, Democratic leader: Elizabeth Warren.
172
And so it begins. The smears to eliminate the other progressive in the race.
The media and their DNC counterparts have already done a pretty good job trying to bring down Sanders. I guess it's Warren's turn next.
65
@JOSEPH
"She made her fortune with crony capitalism guiding mega 250 companies thru bankruptcy with laws she helped rewrite, "
What fortune?
Her only "fortune " is the small house she owns jointly with her husband in Cambridge, MA. The fact that Cambridge is a prime zip code, unlike many in desolate TX, is not to be counted against her.
Speaking of lying, maybe you should look at how Rafael Cruz refuses to ever publicly say his real name, or how he lied about getting a cool one million "gift" from Goldman Sachs but "forget" to add on his tax returns.
73
For over 50 years, I have followed politics closely. Elizabeth Warren is the most impressive candidate I've ever seen in either party to run for POTUS. No one else matches her intelligence, focus, and comprehensive set of philosophically coherent plans for governing.
Biden & the moderates offer us little more than "GOP Light;" this is not what we need to reverse Trump's
disastrous policies. Bernie's policies are acceptable, but he is the wrong messenger- too shrill, inflexible, and overtly antagonistic towards the leaders of the party he hopes to lead. Only Warren can successfully unite the progressive and moderate wings of the party; she inspires passion which is desperately needed to avoid a replay of 2016 when too many potential Democratic voters voted 3rd party or did not vote at all.
We are still very early in a primary season which is unusually fluid and unpredictable. Biden's early lead is melting away faster than snow in May. Buttigieg is having his 15 minutes of fame, but is not a serious contender. Klobuchar gets no traction because she doesn't excite anybody. Bernie is loved by 30% and reviled by everyone else.
This will be a long battle before anyone can claim the top prize. Warren will emerge triumphant because she is the only candidate who doesn't turn off a large share of the voters Democrats need in order to win in November. She'll eviscerate Trump in debates where she shows that she is a thousand times more presidential than he.
86
@Doctor B
I don't think Trump will have the courage to participate in debates.
@Barbb1
You're probably right. Still, the unprecedented refusal to debate, on top of refusal to release his tax returns and his stonewalling investigations by Congress & Mueller, makes for very nice grounds for attacking Trump as a coward & a cover-up artist.
"What are you hiding, Donald?" is a question which Democrats should be shouting at the top of their lungs 24/7 between now & Election Day. That should impact some of the small cohort of undecided voters who remain persuadable.
1
I think she lost a lot of support when despite her confident “ I have a plan for that!” campaign, she tripped up on explaining her Medicare for All plan.
9
Warren looked like a winner not long ago, and now doesn't. The political zeitgeist moves quickly now, changing daily, and the most successful candidates have their fingers on the daily pulse. The most successful practitioner to date is Trump.
The Democratic National Committee should all be let go for incompetence and complete lack of brand management. The voters, nervous and fickle (save Bernie's perhaps) want a giant slayer but do not see one in this pack, and more hopes will be therefore pinned on little Mike Bloomberg.
In a reality show like this one, the audience likes surprises and come from behind winners who excite and delight, not schoolmarms lecturing like Warren. The issue is not now (nor then) the notion of a woman candidate, but someone who can inspire and lead, and win at all costs.
4
She’s the best candidate, hands down. No one comes close.
42
Warren would make an excellent prime minister. She understands well the problems of the nation and also its strengths. Her policies are ambitious—even transformative—but they are well thought out with a pragmatic (though still difficult) path to implementation. She seems able to work well with others and would, I think, be able to hold and lead her party. She is by far my favourite candidate.
But in the reality TV show that is an American presidential election, the best policymakers are rarely the winners. We elect the best showmen, the best salesmen. In our President, artifice actually makes us more comfortable than sincerity. And Warren's sincerity scares us. We're not ready, yet, for that kind of commitment. We'd rather flirt, be entertained, be charmed and flattered. That maybe makes us seem superficial, but I think there's a reason for it. We want a leader who we know can betray us if need be. It shows independence, assertiveness, and the ability to hurt others to get one's way. We love the golden retriever, but for this job we want a pit bull.
I guess I've grown sanguine about Warren likely losing the presidency. I want her to win—but then I want a prime minister, not a president. I wish America were a parliamentary democracy. The second best outcome, however, is to keep Warren as my Senator. She actually has more influence on legislation in the Senate—and she's a wonderful successor to so many progressive Massachusetts legislators. I'll be glad to keep her there.
10
She has to change her message delivery, she's starting to sound like a robot in interviews, repeating the same points.
This is a problem with the press, who are addicted to both pundits and developing narratives as if they're a television writer's room.
Pundits hear Warren's repetition and say she's old news and stop talking about the positives, then she disappears from the conversation.
The media then develops a narrative like this article, a story of someone's dramatic decline, while vaunting up Buttigeg, the most unqualified, unworthy candidate since Donald Trump. He's been on every single news show where he's never challenged on his thin and poor mayoral record.
Warren would clearly be a great president for the moment we're in, but she also has to battle the sexism, lying conservatives and an inept media in order to get the job, so she hopefully can start changing it up and find a new way to excite.
12
The inner dialogue in my brain....Liz Warren and Amy Klobuchar are dynamos. No question about it. But, I see Amy as dynamically evolving and Liz as kind of stuck with her old standby lines, charts and graphs. Amy looks like she is ready to sit down, take a position and stick to it. Liz wants to debate the finer points of her position from every possible angle and perspective. Plus Amy is just a warmer person. But they are both astonishingly well qualified. I think the post Trump US will need an Amy over a Liz Warren.
4
Her decline can be dated to her fiasco over M4A but it was her Sanders backstabbing over sexism before the CNN-rigged debate that led to her free-fall. That charge never stuck and she looked desperate and mean.
6
Unity candidate? No, I see her as the fighting candidate- not onstage, not so much against fellow candidates, but for us. Out here.
If those in her audience walked out, maybe it’s because it’s the wrong kind of audience. Maybe Iowans, Hampshireites (not sure what you call them), don’t need a candidate to fight for them. And maybe the ones that do, working three jobs, didn’t make it to those Iowa caucuses, and can’t make all the Hampshire rallies- taking care of a sick parent....
Her story, her typical speech is familiar. I don’t need to hear it again. She should take that proposed budget of this administration and....discuss what’s in it, not in it. Talk about what these self-serving gov’t departments are doing behind our backs....deal with what is, right now.
And get those Repub brothers of hers on stage with her. And yes, all the Native American tribes that did support her search for the truth of her heritage- on stage with her. And maybe she should ask that one ...Cherokee tribe- if they got a call, asking for, a favor?
The Native Americans, Latinos, Blacks, all struggling minorities, all lower income people of any makeup- that’s who she’s fighting for. Not seeing many of those in these audiences.
And stop apologizing for seeking truth, trying to work out a, plan, for everything. It’s the doggedness, the determination, that shines through. Update the speeches, take a deep breath, and hang in there. You and Bernie, and now Amy- all looking great!
5
Compare Senator Warren’s style with the man who usurped her place in Iowa. She is an angry, arm waving critic of everything except here giveaways that appeal to a few college students. Pete B is measured, analytical, and yet warm enough to engage everyone. The Unity candidate he suffered Warren’s barbs on fund raising while she trots out an untruth about heritage, her dog, and love of beer. Even Amy K got the message that a mean spirit will get you nowhere.
4
@Barbara Amy got that message too late for me.
I'm not sure what is happening here. Last month, the NYT endorsed Warren (and Klobuchar). In this article, we are getting less of an endorsement and more of a look back at "failed" campaign. I am still on Elizabeth's team, but I feel with more and more articles like this, the public won't hold confidence in what she can do. To Bernie supporters, I will say, I think Elizabeth is a more realistic Bernie. She had the courage to lay her plans out in dollars, in something tangible that we can see... I haven't seen Bernie do that yet. Still Bernie seems to have more momentum.
658
@Kristy
I'm tired of the media going on and on about Bernie, Buttigieg, Biden, and Klobuchar and skipping over Warren's third place win in Iowa. They just act like she is out of the race and people behind her are still in it. Sorry folks, but Iowa and NH are just the beginning of the slog to choose a candidate. The huge field of contenders is a detriment because there is precious little time to sort it out and put the money and campaigning behind one person who will knock Trump out. We need a better, quicker, system to get a candidate.
92
@Gina You're right. I feel like the media focuses on the achievements of the other candidates more often. I feel like Warren deserves better treatment.
71
@Kristy I think the distinction here is that the NYT Editorial Board endorsed Warren and Klobuchar. As stated in the reader center, the editorial board for the NYT is "an institutional voice, but not a voice of the institution as a whole." So, the reporting side will continue to report relevant election stories, regardless of whether or not it is favorable to the two candidates endorsed by the editorial board.
20
Warren is still my top pick independent of her current ranking. I am definitely curious as to what happens in this long game form of campaigning. Biden, Bloomberg, and her all seem to have totally different strategies for it, and I'm interested in seeing if a marathon strategy outperforms the early state sprints of the two current frontrunners.
20
I adore Senator Liz Warren. She's a policy wonk who has been successful at politics in Massachusetts. While that does indeed qualify her to run for POTUS, she needs to appeal to a wider audience. She needs to be apprachable to Americans in Texas, Iowa, California and all 50 states.
So while I want Senator Warren to win the primary, she may not. That said, I recently heard a motivational quote during an interview of New Hampshire Democrats.
"While I prefer that the primary finds a perfect candidate, we don't need them if they are gong to lose. I'll gladly vote for an imperfect candidate who can win."
That said, I also enjoy Bernie and was a "Feel The Bern" 2016 voter, slightly discouraged when he didn't win the primary. I like Mayor Pete and don't particularly like Joe Biden because he has too much baggage and seems less vital and sharp compared o the other candidates. All said, I'm completely in line with the New Hampshire Democrat in that I'll vote for anyone because America needs that Democrat to win.
Demonstrate. Donate. Volunteer. Vote.
VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO.
Because the future of democratic America is at stake.
28
Elizabeth Warren has it all. My college age students love her. She's brainy and decent and experienced. She could unite our party--she's a progressive who's just as sane and reasonable as Mayor Pete. And yet some Democrats are getting so hysterical about our chances of beating Trump that they want us to nominate our own billionaire Republican. I just don't get it--it's hard not to think that her gender is the stumbling block.
191
@teach
How about the fact that she's the biggest two-faced hypocrite in the race. Did you see the news clip of her disembarking from the private jet, hiding behind her staffers? She can't ride private jets with her staff on $20 contributions.
11
@ATF
I think it was the angle from which the video was shot. And did you know Mayor Pete got so much money from billionaires that he flew around Iowa on private planes while senators Warren, Klobuchar, and Sanders made due with buses?
2
Presumably this new stumbling block only affecting women candidates materialized sometime after November 2016.
1
The EB must be very disappointed that its news staff has written off the candidate that they endorsed just two weeks ago. Not only does the public ignore the Times’s endorsements, but so does its staff.
Warren’s problem is that she is running in the same lane as Sanders. But while she has supporters, he has true believers. His stick with him, and will happily go down with the Titanic, whereas her supporters will switch candidates, even if reluctantly, if a better option comes along.
25
Warren really suffered from unfair media scrutiny in November. After her wealth tax and universal healthcare plans came out, it was weeks of conservative/libertarian/neoliberal talking heads out on MSBNC, CNN, and other networks trashing not just her plans but her as well. Meanwhile, Buttigieg's health plan would put many people without health insurance onto a for-profit plan that may cost certain individuals up to $10,000 year - way more than what people would've paid in Warren's plan. But no one talked about this in the media.
64
She peaked too early. It's a marathon and not a sprint.
7
She's a one-trick pony, angrily complaining about the same things over and over and over and over and over. We've heard it all before. Worse, she is 'hard Left' and that will NOT win the election. Warren is not the one, not even close. So "not close" that I don't want to see her as VP, either.
30
The "unity candidate"? No way. She's the old scold who wants to punish the successful and well off. When Bloomberg gets fully on board, it'll be all over for her.
20
I suppose we'll have to wait till the day she drops out of the race to see the Times say something . . . anything . . . positive about Elizabeth Warren.
8
@Green Tea It endorsed her.
3
@Green Tea: The Times endorsed her!
@Green Tea The New York Times endorsed Elizabeth Warren.
1
Extremely subjective article focusing on her "likability" traits more so than her proposed policies.
I thought I was reading an article from some random Facebook post or some gossip magazine. This is unacceptable from the NYT.
75
Likability gets votes, bad policies do not. The scolding never worked for most.
More importantly who are the people who would suffer through listening to any of the candidates. There are newspapers and the Internet so that everyone knows about a given candidates plans without having to suffer through rallies or for that matter debates.
Warren could have been a winner.She has the smarts,the experience,the crusader's vision along with an Okie background.
The problem is that,although she really has a grounded perspective,she's allowed herself to be portrayed as a bull in a china shop re the economy.
she has to stop repeating the word "fight" ad nauseam.
This shrill "fight" schtick is sowing doubts about her ability to get broad support.She is appearing to be tone deaf.
That's all without even getting to her weakness with blacks.
13
Wow this article is dissapointing to say the least. It doesn't focus at all on Warren's policies or the many enthusiastic volunteers canvassing in NH (like myself). This article cherry picks circumstances and quotes with a complete disregard for objectivity. why publish something so negative about Warren on primary day? what about the other candidates? writer and editor are completely irresponsible. the electorate is so fluid...think about the impact you might have by publishing this ridiculous fluff piece about a very smart woman with extremely well thought-out policy ideas.
67
@Anna
Yes, I agree
And it ends with the
"Someone in a passing car recognized Ms. Warren as she stepped toward the next address. He lowered the window to announce himself:
“Go Bernieeeeeeeeeee.”
Is this supposed to show that Bernie is ahead? This actually reinforces why I don't like the cult that Bernie leads, which has no respect for anyone else.
"
12
@Lynn
It is not the Bernie supporter that is the problem here. The problem that the NY Times thinks that this exchange is national news.
I have never cared for Ms. Warren, even as a Senator, and I lived in NH . I can't exactly put my finger on why, but I think I have never forgiven her for the Native American charade.I don't care for her stories . I also saw (don't recall where), that she was paid $400K to teach a class, yet she is talking about "affordable college tuition". I don't see her as gritty enough to beat trump. We need someone who knows a lot of dirt about the man (other than the dirt he has already amassed while president). I hate to say it but I think that's going to be Mr. Bloomberg in the end. And he has the money to get the word out.
19
It strikes me that same language Trump supporters use to demean Warren is often the same language Bernie supporters use to do the same. Whoever the nominee is will need the supporters of their primary challengers. People shouldn't forget that.
24
@Mal Stone. Maybe they use the same language because they are describing the same person.
@Mal Stone
Example, please.
@Purple Spain
The language is demeaning and sexist in most cases.
No one dropped out after Iowa and it seems like the anti Trump sentiment is "I will vote for anyone, but Trump" (that includes me). Under that scenario, if we will vote for any Democratic nominee, then which nominee can beat Trump. Which nominee can call out Trump for what he really is, right to his face, in a debate. The only thing that Trump can talk about is usually a lie and usually an insult. He can not discuss policy, he speaks in platitudes, because he is uneducated to the office he holds. When they go low, we go high is laudatory, but it will not beat Trump on the debate stage. Whoever is the nominee needs to politely take down Trump from every angle. It is very easy to do. Trump's personality traits are disgusting and his behind the scene policy iniatives are disgusting (rescinding parts of the Clean Water Act, children in cages, corporate socialism, etc.). So which Democratic candidate can speak well on their feet and attract the middle? That's the one I want to vote for.
6
There is no guarantee that Trump will debate/ also,sadly, this country isn’t ready for a woman President
Warren is a very smart, highly capable person. Unfortunately, my view is that she cannot win in key Electoral College states. She should focus on the Senate where she would be a formidable Majority Leader if the Democrats can retake the Senate. As we have sadly seen, there is immense power to be wielded in that position. Unlike McConnell, she actually would use her power for the good of the people.
Who can win? Bloomberg.
9
@J. Bloomberg was a terrible Mayor who handed NYC over to his pals in the real estate industry. Never in a million years would I vote for him. He is arrogant and a billionaire who ought to be taxed to bring him down to size.
3
If Elizabeth Warren was a man, the press and voters would be treating her as the second coming of FDR.
She’s a capitalist who knows that the excesses of capitalism are destroying this country. She knows how to fight on their turf, and they hate her for it.
152
Looking at the graph in the lead article it’s sad to see how the once high flying Warren campaign has fallen.
She strikes me as someone who’s very good at policy but perhaps not so good at politics. She was able to recover from that early stumble over ethnicity and looked to be gaining strength but her effort to differentiate herself from Sanders by emphasizing that she would, unlike him, not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for universal healthcare backfired. Telling Americans that you’re not going to raise their taxes is usually a popular thing but everyone knows that money has to come from somewhere and in this case Sanders came off as more believable even though he has yet to release a detailed funding scheme to pay for it.
I think that the second thing which backfired for her was that attack on Sanders regard whether or not he said a woman could not beat Trump. While some supporters were energized by it others were turned off.
It’s not looking good for Warren right now. I do hope that if she’s forced to drop out that if one of the other candidates wins in November that he or she finds a place in their administration for her. America needs her sharp mind and carin heart.
7
Wow, it seems the hyperventilating is misplaced after the outcome of the first caucus state is still being contested and the second caucus state has not yet been determined. Keep in mind, Barack Obama lost New Hampshire in 2008 before going on to win the primary. We have a long way to go before driving the nails in Elizabeth Warren’s presidential aspirations. Seems this article could just as easily be written about any of the other candidates, but it wasn’t. Each one carries risks. But at the end of the day, whoever the candidate is everyone needs to work to get the Democratic nominee elected.
453
@Charity Eleson
Obama won IA and he came in second in NH.
Warren came in 3rd in IA, a distant 3rd, and could end up anywhere from 3rd to 5th in NH.
To compare this to Obama in 2008 is quite the stretch.
9
@Charity Eleson
Well, not everyone is on board with voting blue no matter what.
The following, from today's Washington Post, pretty much sums up the Bernie side:
"Some in the room saw Sanders as the true unity candidate. Conor Hannon, a 23-year-old political science student, said he would vote for Sanders in the primary, then probably vote for the Green Party if another candidate won the nomination.
“He's not loyal to the party, but when has the party ever been loyal to us?” Hannon said. “There's a basic reciprocity here.” "
13
@Charity Eleson I believe a real factor in Obama's loss in NH was his comment during a debate, fresh in the minds of NH voters, that HRC was "likable enough." It was funny in the moment but it went down as ungracious and supercilious, and he paid for it. Similarly, Warren's misstep with floating something Bernie supposedly said in private to her a year ago, definitely calculated to resonate with female voters, backfired when people decided he was more credible in his denial. Her slippage seems to date from then.
5
Warren was taken out by the corporate media. As soon as she started surging MSNBC and others began perpetuating fear and loathing of her plans. MSNBC was especially nasty and agenda driven in this effort. Now they wonder "what happened to Elizabeth?" Well, you assassinated her MSNBC. Enjoy your complicity in whatever happens, just as you did in 2016. Did ratings ever suffer? Trump has been great for MSNBC. Why do they want that to change, now?
30
people are demonstrating that they will vote for a young and untested man who is gay before they will vote for a woman
44
@No name Her gender has nothing to do with it. Her style - constantly harping and complaining and angry - turns people off and that would be true whether the angry harping complainer was male or female. Don't use gender as a crutch for failure.
6
@No name
No, they are not.
2
@SilverLaker
If that were true, Bernie wouldn’t be doing as well as he is.
2
Why do the New York Times and Washington Post choose to paint Warren as a loser this early in the race when so many people are dedicated to her? Why do they choose not to call out Sanders' "bros" who threaten people's lives online and whom he does not call you? Why? Because they are owned by huge corporate interests who believe that Sanders cannot win but Warren might. And that would be bad for billionaires, that's why.
38
@Me I could not agree more with this comment.
2
@Me
Yes exactly. Biden the "front runner" came in fourth, behind Warren. Where is the prediction of his political demise from the NY Times?
How is fourth place better than third?
1
Warren has tried to backtrack her identity comments, ie Native American, I am one tough woman etc. etc. but the damage was done.
It was fatal to Hillary. She snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by running an identity obsessed, vote for me because I am a woman and entitled to be president, men are the problem, divisive campaign instead of Obama who ran as an American and not an angry young black man.
The best way for a woman to be elected president is well, not to run as a woman but an American uniting all people.
180
@Paul
The Native American claim was decades ago. She unfortunately allowed herself to be goaded into taking a DNA test, which did show Cherokee heritage. (Just a small percentage, sure, but look at it this way: if you claim to be a descendant of George Washington, that would be only a small percentage of your makeup today, simply because these things dilute over time. You’d certainly still have the right to say you are his descendant.) I say “unfortunately “ because, although she was vindicated, the right-wing spin machine obliterated that fact.
BTW, Hillary got nearly 3 million more votes than Trump.
37
@Paul I never understand the Native American heritage criticism of Warren. Back when she claimed to be Indian, she was going by what her family believed their heritage was just like we all did before DNA tests. Why do we assume she did it with intent to cheat?
This is Trump's game - why are we all playing along?
50
@Michigander Thank you for your reply. Three million more votes, like being close is only good in horse shoes.
It's the rationalization of Hillary supporters, ie I didn't lose because I was an identity obsessed big liberal, men are the problem candidate from a big liberal state, I lost because they did not change the electoral college for me.
Warren is not as bad as Hillary with the identity stuff but unfortunately Hillary poisoned it for women in this national election.
Amy K has the best shot. She is not identity obsessed as far as I know and is running as a moderate Americans uniting everybody.
5
Elizabeth, most people feel you’re too liberal. And amongst the left-leaning liberals, Bernie has baggage and a coalition from 2016.
So where does this place you?
Elizabeth, you’re my gal.
You gave up your paycheck in solidarity when the government was shutdown because of Trump and the Republicans. No other candidate did that.
Elizabeth, you created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Republicans shut it down instantly because it was helping the average citizen. No other candidate can say that.
Elizabeth, you have experience as an attorney. We’ll need that.
Elizabeth, you understand that Medicare for All is a necessity. I understand that also.
Elizabeth, you’ve been fighting for the Middle and Lower classes for as long as I can remember. This is what I respect about you.
And Trump can disparage a man woefully. He can disparage a woman, but I know you’ll let his threats roll off because you have bigger fish to fry.
And lastly. You’re whip smart. Just like all the female protagonists in my books. I know you can lead us.
Elizabeth...let’s give it the best we’ve got. Let’s show them what leadership really is.
The country is on the brink. We need to bring it back...resoundingly!
112
Studies after studies have shown that Warren did not “utilize” affirmative action to get ahead. She passed the bar on her own merit and did not apply to work at Harvard as a WOC. Harvard claimed she was a WOC after they were under fire for lack of diversity and they did so without her permission.
Amazing how quickly we discredit women without the facts.
38
@Honeybee
Warren is a professor at a top law school (Harvard) because she is a widely acknowledged expert on bankruptcy laws. She became an expert on this after watching her family &other middle class families struggle with crushing medical debts. Unlike Trump, who has lived a life of undeserved privilege, Warren understands ordinary average Americans.
The Boston Globe has thoroughly explored the question you cite. Their conclusion is that she did nothing dishonest, & fairly earned the academic success she has achieved.
41
@Honeybee
Warren did not gain any benefit when she claimed native American heritage.
The DNA test proves that she had native ancestry.
Stop repeating lies
3
it’s unfortunate that only some candidates (such as Senator Warren) are expected to explain how they will pursue ambitious goals.
30
My interest in Warren declined as she fumbled Medicare-for-All by proposing a Sanders-like solution without Sander's (relative) honesty over who would pay for it. Worried that 150 million Americans would reject being forced to give up their employer-based health insurance for something new and unproven, she then suggested she'd wait until the third year of her presidency to push for Medicare-for-All. She clearly doesn't understand that presidents, CEOs and other executives usually need to usher in major changes early while they have the political capital to push for goals that are difficult to achieve. She also has chosen to promote a wealth tax despite its dubious constitutionality when she could have proposed a number of more easily attainable ways to tax the rich and limit their outsized influence on American politics. The issue isn't that Warren is a woman or even the perception of her as inauthentic, but rather her poor political instincts. This is reflected in her inability to retool her campaign now that she flailing. Incidentally, I'd vote for Klobuchar if my state's primary was today.
13
Unfortunately for Warren, she preached a similar message to Sanders but also lacked a grassroots movement behind her. Sanders knows that he cannot pass anything without broad popular support to take to the streets. Warren just doesn’t have that. She relied too much on educated middle and upper middle class folks to propel her campaign.
11
Not true. By all measures, Warren has the second largest grassroots movement. She also reached fundraising landmarks quicker than Bernie did in 2016. Plus, she does not take PAC money unlike Bernie.
22
When all is said and done, even if Warren doesn’t win, I’ll feel like my conscience is clear having supported her early - and to the very end, regardless of where she ends up. She’s brought forth a remarkable set of policies and approaches.
I wouldn’t have felt the same if I had done so for any other candidate, really. And if voters decide that she’s not the right candidate for the job, I’ll have to start seriously considering whether this America is the America I want to continue to call “home”.
29
I still think she is the best candidate and it dismays next how hype is still piled on Iowa and New Hampshire.
We’ll see what happens from here but I’m personally fine with those two non-representational states.
15
As I listen to talking heads saying that the public is not ready for a female president and using Hilary Clinton as the proof positive, I want to simply say that Elizabeth Warren is not Hilary Clinton. Hilary came with a mountain of Clinton baggage. Her campaign was poorly run. And yet, she got 3 million more votes than her opponent.
39
Warren has my vote. We’ve had years of men in office. She’s brilliant, poised and thoughtful. She’ would represent America well in every step. If she and Bernie share some ideology, why are people picking the old white guy who just had a heart attack? Warren/Klobuchar. Mayor Pete in the cabinet. Done.
53
@Wills
I like Bernie and Warren.
Bernie has been in national politics for a lot longer, so people know him better
A study was done a couple years ago on the regulars on Sunday morning talk shows. There were 19 Republicans and Bernie who regularly appeared in these shows. (Democrats are usually afraid to have an opinion on anything and avoid TV. This is a serious problem because Republicans keep pushing opinion to the Right while Democrats refuse to push opinion to the left.)
It turns out that many young people have been watching Bernie for a long time, and they see that he refuses to answer questions unless they are about policy, that his policies are always designed to help a majority, not just the rich, and that he doesn't change with the political winds.
I have some concerns about Bernie's health, and that is why I'd love to see Bernie and Warren on the same ticket. (I don't care who is on top of the ticket.)
Trump will promise all things to all people, just as he did last time. If Democrats promise nothing, like last time, Trump will win.
Bernie and Warren know that you get out the vote by giving people real incentives to vote for your candidate. A promise to work with the party of Trump will not mean they will work with you, and is not a reason to vote for Democrats instead. Trump will also work with his party, so you have to offer more than that to win.
Promise to help the 60% of the population that works for a wage worth the things their families NEED.
1
@McGloin
Great perspective. You need a moderate on the ticket otherwise they’ll get crushed as socialists.
God forbid Ivanka becomes the first woman president four years from now. Go Elizabeth!
15
Senator Warren's policies & political heart are in the right place, but what we all need to remember is if Mitch hangs on and is not voted out, or the Senate remains GOP controlled, no new DEM POTUS will be able to get anything accomplished ....
12
@Marco And even if the Democrats win some seats there will likely be more moderates than progressives and any Sanders or Warren legislation would be modified or watered down, perhaps significantly, just as the health care act was when it was finally passed,
I’m all in for Warren. We are going to need a steady, persistent hand to put together again (and in better form) all that has been broken in America. Imagine if we focused on who could do the job the best? Warren would win, hands down! It is only when we go to the negative assumption that most Americans are bigots that we lose hope in Warren, but Obama proved that isn’t true when we are willing to enthusiastically put our weight behind our candidate. So, let’s do that with someone who has appeal to both Biden and Bernie voters and watch her take the race in the final straightaway as the others drop out, and she steadily picks up voters. Run, Liz, run! And, come on, America, listen to your better angels. That’s what will redeem us.
149
@Rachel Doughty Well said! Thank you.
2
The lack of objectivity toward the candidates in this election cycle disappoints me. I expected more from you, NYT.
223
I agree. But I feel like rather than pick favorites out of the Democrats, they basically tore them all down equally while continuing to either give Trump a free pass or to implicitly endorse his insanity. Honestly, I’ve asked my wife several times to cancel our subscription, but she seems to feel it is valuable. I like the non-political articles, but the Times’ reporting on politics is terrible. I vastly prefer Washington Post, the Guardian, BBC, and NPR. The Times has gone through the looking glass in an effort to appear fair minded. You can’t be fair minded and pretend Trump has any sort of value as a person or president.
45
@Ben I'd say the NYT must be doing something right if you, apparently a left liberal, and I, a right conservative, both think it's political reporting is unfair!
4
@Kristin
The NYT never examined or apologized for their skewed coverage of Hillary Clinton. They started the whole e-mail thing and beat on that for 18 months.
I fear Warren is getting the Clinton treatment from them.
1
I feel sorry for Elizabeth Warren. Her race for President of the United States was over before it started. The unfortunate problem is that she has no presence as a leader. She is probably well suited to running a classroom of people under 20 years old or being swapped around into different positions within a government run by Democrats. Warren is simply not suited to lead in more demanding situations.
12
I don’t think you have a clear understanding of either Elizabeth Warren or “running a classroom of people under 20.”
14
@Kristen B The real question is who will you vote for when Warren drops out of the race in two months.
And looming behind all this is Bloomberg. I think he will make these early primaries irrelevant very soon. If he wins, he may end up changing this process all together and I hope so on that count. It's never been fair that so much emphasis has been placed and so much electability momentum has been built in these early states, which really aren't representative of the Democratic Party or the country as a whole. That said, Warren would make a fine President and I don't think we should judge her ability to win based on these early results either.
31
@Brannon Perkison I disagree with you on Warren, but think you're right about Bloomberg. He's my choice and the only candidate I'd vote for over Trump.
2
@Brannon Perkison
Yesterday 11,000 ( yes, you read that right) people turned up for a Trump rally in NH.
The Dems are going to lose to this nut case unless they nominate someone with the clout that Mike has.
Bloomberg will win this for us.
No one else comes even close.
3
@John I agree. I'm supporting Bloomberg as well. But Warren (and any of the Democrats for that matter, including even Bernie) would make a much better President than Trump. In addition to being an outright dishonest criminal, Trump will literally destroy the economy if he's given another four years. The only thing that's kept it as good as it is, is because Jerome Powell and the Fed have done a decent job -- and of course Trump attacks them at all times for it. We've been lucky so far, but it won't last. It may already be too late. Trump's poison, John. Please don't vote for him, if Bloomberg doesn't win the nomination.
Warren, the candidate shouting purity tests to gin up support, while dividing people, Now call herself the unity candidate. Please. Get the hook and pull her off the stage. She is done.
16
"I have a plan for that"
"Life is what happens while we are making our plans."
I love EW, yet she is still sticking to plan while the river of momentum turns the other way.
Youth, charisma, and understanding rather than correcting is what American leadership needs. And a wolf to take down and rip apart a bully by just using his own words as ammo, like Mike Bloomberg's full on razor-sharp attack is now doing.
JFK had the charisma, intelligence, and wit to rebuke any fool. EW lashes like a teacher, but lacks the penetrative muscle to bring DT down.
But boy, EW is one of the smartest men in the room!
5
If the worst thing you can say about a candidate is that like many Americans she believed she had Native American ancestors...
The other day, Warren's husband was in one of her NH offices and I told him how perplexed and saddened I was by press coverage like this. Why is it that the NYT and the WAPo and the like are so negative about Warren? Why aren’t they talking about her plans for housing, part time workers, rebuilding the State Department? He said, “In private the big press people all tell us Warren is the most qualified candidate, but they prefer to cover the process. It sells more papers.”
One thing voters should know is that Warren's campaign organization is packed with solid people who get stuff done; quiet competence. If you vote for Warren, you can be sure there will be no scandals that blow a national candidate's chances. I have seen the campaign kick out volunteers who were not acting to high behavioral standards. It takes an army, and hers is very good. I would not count her out.
The other thing is that Warren has been fighting to protect middle class families for 50 years. She is the only candidate whose life reflects that. And if she doesn’t win, she will keep on fighting for middle class families, changing bankruptcy laws, pursuing criminal justice reform. If that isn’t authentic, I don’t know what is.
502
@MJ In NH it’s beyond depressing. She is by leaps and bounds the most qualified candidate. I couldn’t name a single plan from Klobuchar or Buttiegieg but there are surging. I’m ready to throw in the towel and just let Bloomberg firehose Trump with his mega billions. Warren told us that a country that elects Trump is, ipso facto, in deep deep trouble. This was 100% correct and holds to this day. Warren is my top choice but if the national media frowns her candidacy then I’m ready to go full in on Bloomberg. Not from a sense of happiness but from a sense that Trump must be stopped. It’s the only imperative at this point.
69
@MJ In NH
"like many Americans she believed she had Native American ancestors"
That is extreme spin. She heard a story that some distant ancestor may have been Native American so for decades she identified herself, both personally and professionally, as "American Indian." That's called lying.
13
@MJ In NH "Warren has been fighting to protect middle class families for 50 years"? In 1970, she tought children with disabilities, ok, but she still was a "die hard conservative" then, as her friends say, and her public advocacy for the financial interests of middle class people started in the late 80s. Still, she remained at Republican until 1995. With lots of respect for Warren's evolved progressive stances, I suggest you correct your bold claim to "for more than 30 years".
9
I will wait till I see the results and I have to ask these articles come as a way to influence those elections against her?
31
Elizabeth Warren has two things working against her. One she’s a successful and outspoken woman. A large minority of American voters hate that. And Two, she’s a technocrat that knows how to fix things. That has rarely been accepted by probably the same set of voters. Just see the experience of Jimmy Carter or Al Gore.
Many Americans don’t want to fix things. They want to be told that they are all right and all of the problems are caused by someone else. See Trump’s approach to campaigning.
Still Elizabeth Warren is the best candidate in the race by far.
986
@Ed Madej Why not just say the truth? Why not just say what everyone knows. Warren can't win and isn't going to win. She's being outflanked by Bernie on the left and Buttigieg on the right. If she comes in fourth or a distant third in New Hampshire then it's over. Her fundraising will dry up. Donors aren't going to back a losing horse at this stage of the race. Warren is an impressive candidate. But she is unelectable. She is for reparations. In poll after poll, the majority of American voters are against this. Reparations are the only issue that would compel independent swing voters to hold their nose & vote for Trump. Voters are also strongly against any legislation that would increase the flow of illegal immigration. But Warren is for policies that not only decriminalize illegal immigration but encourage it. Her position on immigration guarantees the Democrats will lose the working-class vote. She & her allies are on the wrong side of these issues. That point can't be emphasized enough. Mainstream voters will NEVER cast their ballot for any candidate who supports increased illegal immigration and reparations. It doesn't matter where Warren stands on healthcare & other issues. She has disqualified herself from serious consideration by her stand on these two extremely polarizing problems. If she is the nominee she will lose. A moderate gives us the best chance to win in 2020.
48
@Ed Madej Great comment. Thank you.
21
@Bill Brown
Is Donald Trump a moderate?
26
Matt Flegenheimer I find this article disturbing. Take your headline. Seriously, take your headline! It evaluates, it features, it passes on anecdotes from quaint quasi-profiles—and it shapes our hopes and dreams. Better there be fewer articles that feed dismissal in this popularity contest than your damning faint feature
67
Senator Warren has never come across as genuine to me. From her exaggerated claim of Native American heritage to her Hail Mary accusation against Senator Sanders, I have not seen an electable presidential candidate. Her campaign must only carry the fault if one concludes she was electable in the first place.
29
@Charles Have you paused to ask yourself for a deeper examination of what "feels genuine" means for you? The two examples you listed are pundit-level observations and superficial distractions. What about her policies, her experience, her fervent following, her vision for the future? Chances are "doesn't feel genuine" is actually the deep discomfort you feel with a female candidate, which is harder to acknowledge, harder still to name.
22
@Charles "by their fruits ye shall know them" Matt. 7:16
2
I voted for Senator Clinton. For whatever that’s worth.
I really think after the past few years of lies and misinformation, America needs someone who can teach us better politics, and mutual understanding.
My dream ticket would be Warren-Harris. Two formidable women representing two generations, and both coasts. They need to make a major push to retake the Senate.
31
@Mike Quinlan That ticket would be a disaster for the Dems. America is not ready for the ticket to be two women. While there are many who believe them to be highly qualified and worthy (personally I cannot get there with Harris) it is the reality that the votes will not be there.
6
@DC why? What possible difference would it make it the VP was another woman? Frankly, I worry much more that, latent homophobia will really rear its ugly head. You better know that Trump will use it the ugliest way possible, should Mayor Pete win. There has been a lot of progress but we are not quite there yet.
2
@Mike Quinlan Harris didn’t seem to hry much support on the campaign trail as she of course was one of the first to drop out. She was seen as an overreaching phony. In an article in this paper while Harris was still a candidate the reporters found that she had almost no reputation at all, good or bad, among Southern black voters. They just didn’t know who she was.
I have no problem with Warren. I was a supporter until she went after Sanders. I have not ruled her out because I am not afraid of a woman who knows her stuff. But you have named a combination of two women who are hard to like individually for many and together would be toxic.
Sen. Warren is the one who can confront the insidious corruption in politics, and act as a bridge between the dysfunctional capitalism and utopian socialism. She is smart and understands the day to day monumental challenges faced by the working class.
She is battle tested. Go Sen. Warren; many in the hinterland are behind you.
119
When candidates begin to appear frail—
Voters seem to have a sixth sense for perceiving that.
And that is what is now perceived in Warren, and for a long time in Biden.
16
@srwdm Sanders had a heart attack a few weeks ago and rose, Trump-like, to the top off the heap. Voters are not rational.
12
@srwdm the sixth sense is relentless media narratives pounded out every minute by bored cynical pundits.
7
@RW Sanders does not appear frail—he’s much sharper mentally than Biden, and much more consistent and honest than Warren. “Frail” isn’t just about the state of one’s body.
3
Yes, she has made mistakes. Calling out Bernie for supposedly saying a year ago that a woman couldn't be elected President and then refusing to shake his hand after the debate was a particularly bad one. She should apologize to Bernie and then move on. She is clearly the most qualified candidate to be President.
5
@Grandpa Bob
I am a MA resident , voted for EW as my Senator .
I really hope she remains there . not a Presidential contender
Warren is doing badly because she's a poor candidate. The social-justice crowd that have converged around Sanders cannot forgive her fake-Native American past. The majority of the white middle-class will not find her socialist ideas palatable and would rather go with Pete (or Bloomberg?).
She has neither charisma nor charm and the average American is bemused that she receives such veneration from the media. Not to mention her recent desperate attacks on Sanders and Pete that have fallen flat and cost her considerable momentum and support.
I know this will be hard to hear for many reading the NYT, but it's past time for Warren to throw in the towel. You will have to wait another 4 years (at the very least) for the first female President.
27
I still think Elizabeth Warren is the single most intelligent, honest and winnable candidate out there. She has a brilliant mind, deep knowledge of the issues, limitless energy, passion for truth and fairness and competence beyond measure. She also has a sense of humor, is attractive and personable. She has my vote.
266
Warren would be leading if Bernie, the independent, would drop out. He’s too old and too polarizing to be Pres. She is much more sensible, calm and can pivot to the center vs Donald.
192
@Meg Riley . Why should he drop out when he's leading the national polls and has the most money and most supporters?
27
@Meg Riley
And she would win the general election if Trump dropped out.
10
@Meg Riley People just like Bernie more.
8
The problem isn't Senator Warren. The electorate is suffering from choice paralysis. This is reflected in the relatively weak turnout and indecisiveness. Also, media coverage has been saturated to the point where people like me are anxious to just get this over with.
52
I'm still with Warren, because her policies and plans are based on what the majority of American people need and she has the fiscal knowledge and sense that most of the other candidates lack. I feel fortunate that there are other good candidates and that they are not hurling schoolyard epithets at each other a la the master Tweety-Bird-in SpinChief. I like Bernie too as well as some other candidates and will vote for whomever is the nominee. Nonetheless, the presidential election is more than a horse race even the press never covers it other than that. There are many states to go.
74
I have seen all of the top candidates this election cycle and none comes close to Warren in terms of authenticity, grit, smarts, preparedness. Her campaign has been by far the best and most far reaching in this state. I will be proud to cast my vote for her today.
I also think it is important to recognize that if any other candidate was 78 and had had a recent heart attack campaigning for a 4 year high stress job s/he would be vilified for being irresponsible and ego maniacal. It is beyond me how Bernie has the support he does. Not to mention Elizabeth getting pushed and pushed on how she will pay for m4a when Bernie continuously says he doesn’t have to explain how he will pay for it.
But, of course, I will vote blue no matter who in November.
284
@Jill
Slight correction.
He's said/shown multiple ways to pay for it. He says nobody will/can know what it will cost in exact numbers.
He's not wrong on either.
As for his stents, he IS being pilloried by the likes of you and yours and the media (NYT Ember) insistently.
Nobody knows when their time is up. The man is willing to risk his life on making America better for all. Could be worse things to have on ones tombstone. Yes, we get it, that many of you don't understand the mans support. Yet he has the highest favorability's of any candidate (again, still). He rates the highest in trust and honesty (again, still). Rates the highest in understanding voters. Etc. etc. etc. You don't get it. Tens of millions do.
Also, ALL the candidates have an outsized ego, one needs that to think of running for Pres.; including your favorite.
Agreed Blue in Nov.
May the best candidate win.
23
@Jill . Bernie is popular because he is unvarnished. He has had the same principles since he entered office more than 40 years ago. Voters see that he stands up for what he believes, even when it's not popular. He does not care and sticks with the message and moves people over to his side. That is what the successful Republicans have done, and Bernie is one of the few politicians on the Democratic side that does it. He doesn't look at polls to see where he should position himself. He seeks to "change the polls" in his direction, and it's worked. Because of this he seems honest and upfront with voters - not a politician that panders or will say anything to gain votes. Be that as it may, I love Warren and I would for her in a heartbeat. I like Klobuchar, Biden, and Buttigieg less, but I will also vote for them. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate and Trump is going destroy our institutions and environment if given another four years.
20
@Jill
There are millions of us who begged Sen. Warren to run 2016. For strange and unexplained reasons she declined and never said why.
When Sen Warren falls in the trap of M4A and the pressure to show the $$ to pay for it, the backlash was so powerful it prompted Bloomberg to get in. Then she flipped on it after the damage was done. And instead of borrowing a page from Bill Clinton winning book, specifically triangulation, she compounded the problems by uttering she will favor decriminalizing illegal border crossing.
She never recovered.
Her polling numbers start diving.
If she didn't win tonight, regrettably, she is done.
7
Warren is the one I always pegged to bring up the Biden/Burisma/Ukraine issue.
Number one, she has the courage to do it.
Number two, she would benefit the most. There are a lot of voters who aren't looking at the issues as much as the person; they like grandpa Joe, but not crazy uncle Bernie. If Biden was pushed out, a lot of them would go to Warren.
Warren doesn't have to make a huge deal about Ukraine; she just needs to bring it up and say "there are some concerns..." But will she do it?
Time is running out!
1
@99percent
Third post in a row where I've read "if it weren't for Bernie" Elizabeth would get some traction. Whatever happened to each rises or falls on his or her own merit?
9
@99percent
Why on earth would Liz bring up that nothing burger of an issue?
She get ZERO benefit and only scorn.
Democrats know that the Biden/Burisma/Ukraine 'scandal' is a Russian created fiction peddled by a corrupt administration willing to do anything to win in November.
The only concerns are how low the current administration will go to beat that the very dead horse.
3
@99percent First wine caves, then tales about Bernie, now you want her to get in the mud with Trump in the Ukraine. If that is all you think Elizabeth has to run on, you need to find another candidate.
Elizabeth Warren has intelligence and a decent platform. They were serving her well until she started showing a nasty side. Start another spat with a different candidate and she will be gone. I can’t speak for voters in general, but this voter is sick of it.
You want Elizabeth Warren to do pretty much the same thing that Trump wanted the Ukrainians to do, which was to just announce that they were starting an investigation into the Bidens. He didn’t care if there was nothing there, or no actual investigation. Just a hint. You, like Trump, believe that people are ignorant enough to fall for it.
Voters who want more lies and dirt will just vote for Trump. It is the one area where he has the advantage of being the expert.
Senator Warren can beat Donald Trump.
Senator Warren is smarter than most of the other candidates.
Senator Warren has been fighting for the middle class for decades.
Senator Warren is younger than Sanders/Biden/Bloomberg.
She has my vote.
361
Warren is, without question, the policy master of the primary. As she likes to remind us, "I have a plan for that." And she does - extremely well researched, creative, thoughtful, insightful plans based on real facts and not political pseudoscience.
Unfortunately, voters are not going to read detailed white papers. We need clear, quick, simple messages to resonate with voters. Exhibit A: Make American Great Again....whatever that meant, it worked.
As we get closer to the election I am left with this terrible mixed feeling. On the other hand, I WISH we lived in a world where Warren's "plans" connected with voters. If we did, Hillary Clinton would have just finished her third SOTU speech. Sadly, we don't. And I don't feel that Warren ever developed a sales pitch for her candidacy besides her being the smartest person in the room. I am sad to admit it, but that is not a winning strategy in the era of Trump.
20
Warren could crush Trump in a debate. But I don't think it would matter, as her perceived negatives (most because of the high percentage of bigots in the US) would offset her advantage with facts and competence.
Unless other candidates fall, I don't see her winning the nomination. However, if nominated Warren could win if the anti-Trump vote is highly motivated and not totally demoralized by election day. (Obviously Trump's intent is to make all of us who oppose Trump feel hopeless and not vote, when he is actually weak, insecure, and vulnerable.)
4
I am a supporter of both Warren's and Sanders' campaigns. What concerns me about Warren was when she waffled on how soon her proposal for universal healthcare could be implemented.
Of course, she will need to use co-operation and persuasion in both the House and Senate once she gets into office, but this is not time to be conciliatory. Republicans don't concede an inch. There will be time to make concessions if need be, once she gets in office.
I believe Sanders' strength is that his message does not change. We can trust he will not waffle on the platforms he is running on.
7
Ultimately, I’m back where I started.
I was there on that frigid day last winter when Elizabeth formally launched her campaign in Lawrence, Massachusetts.
As she gave a soaring and meticulous speech, weaving together the remarkable story of the powerful immigrant women who led the Bread and Roses strike, I knew that most people wouldn’t embrace her candidacy. That the Bernie people would reject her largely because she’s a woman. That moderates would say she’s too radical.
I think Elizabeth Warren is the finest public servant I have ever encountered, and she will have my vote on Super Tuesday. But I do not think she will win.
175
I still believe. She has staying power. The longer she remains, the stronger she will become. Notwithstanding the media bypassing her. In their quest to follow the so-called front runner and call the race just as it has begun, they overlook the obvious drawbacks - the health of Sanders and his narrow appeal, the shallowness of Pete, Biden’s lack of currency and so on. Whatever happened to reporting the facts - no one came out a clear winner in Iowa and the same may be true in N.H. The real story was the lack of turnout in Iowa and the African-American vote. That’s of more concern for these so-called front runners.
53
@Cousy
"That the Bernie people would reject her largely because she’s a woman."
What?
Care to back this up?
If you bothered to look at history, over 80% of Sanders primary voters last election went to a woman. Another 5% or so, went to another woman.
His staff is made up of 71% women. His millions of volunteers are over 60% women. He leads amongst women donors. Leads amongst suburban women donors. Leads amongst blue collar women. His top donors occupation is...teachers.
Nothing in the above shows a rejection of women. Much less by women.
Please, show us all this huge rejection of women by the Sanders supporters that you opine about.
Waiting...
17
@Cousy
Don't write her off yet. These two first primary races are tiny and unrepresentative. She is both practical and progressive.
1
Warren’s problem is that she is not authentic. Playing the Native American card to translate her Rutgers-Newark law degree into a job in the Ivy League is just the beginning. Going after Bernie a few weeks ago was a “huuuge” mistake. Finally, how have the last liberals from Massachusetts done (Kerry, Dukakis) done leading the ticket? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Americans realize she is not the candidate to beat Trump in November.
60
@Mary
This is such a smear I don't even know where to start. We all grow up with family stories and beliefs about our heritage.
My Irish grandfather died when my mother was a baby. She was raised Catholic in an otherwise Protestant family when her mother remarried, which made her always feel different. I was raised as someone who was 1/4 Irish. I do not play the "Irish card." It is who I am.
Only I am not. I have only a sliver of Irish DNA, and tracing my grandfather's side of the family tree I still can't get him back to Ireland. He was Catholic, but it's very likely he was English, as am I.
It's the stories our families tell us and what they believe. Working with tribal colleges I know that matters to Native people as well.
87
@avrds All my life, my mother told me her father (who died when I was a toddler) was a Swedish immigrant who "came over on the boat". He was in late middle age when she was born, and so the dates seemed to match up. After she passed away, I took a good look at her birth certificate, which stated that her father had been born in Illinois. A little sleuthing on genealogical databases showed his family had been in the US since the early 1700's. Families pass along all kinds of stories that aren't really true.
12
@Kris
Exactly. And those are the stories we internalize as we grow up. I still "feel" Irish because my mother was told repeatedly she was half-Irish Catholic, an outsider in an otherwise Scandinavian household. It was part of who she was. And thus part of who I am.
But I never "played the Irish card" to get a job. And neither did Elizabeth Warren use her family stories in that way. That's just one more cheap shot to try to tarnish and bring down an otherwise powerful and successful woman who would make a great president.
6
Mrs. Warren has run a good ‘mostly’ error free campaign. Unfortunately, her one error was enough for her trust aura to dissipate: her fake Native American credentials.
29
@Jaime Rodriguez that is distorting both the truth and her family's history. In believing the attacks made against her, I really think you need to realize you are choosing to believe those who would lie to you.
33
@Jaime Rodriguez
A woman candidate: one error.
A male candidate: 1,000 errors, grab em' by the P, and installed as President with 3 million fewer votes than his female rival candidate.
You do the math.
2
@Mike Quinlan Many of us in the South grew up being told we had Cherokee ancestry. DNA tests proved differently.
So much hoopla. We need to listen to what they all say and make the right choice. I have not made up my mind and I sure wish I could. The suspense is killing me.
4
To many of us, Warren comes across as disingenuous, and it's not just because of the whole Native American brouhaha. I think it would be useful for her to sit for a long form interview with Howard Stern, like Hillary recently did. It would humanize her and give her a chance to talk about how she will realistically raise the trillions needed for her programs without bankrupting the country. She needs a serious game change or she's toast.
20
@MJG - I agree. Hilary came off so cool on Stern. Big time.
All these candidates operate in a weird bubble.
They should know that Trump changed the game.
It would only help Warren if she went on Stern, and looked at how she comes off to an audience.
She is so smart IMHO, and would make a fine President, but I get a sense that folks are just turned off to her.
Such a shame.
Somebody should let Bernie know that he is a millionaire. And that there are 11.8 million HOUSEHOLDS with a net worth of a million dollars or more.
38
@Steve Cohen
This has what to do with Senator Warren?
But now that you've brought it up, yes, he was successful with a book as Warren has been; and they both agree that taxes need to be raised upon those with great(er) wealth. Themselves included.
19
@Dobbys sock
The quote about Bernie not going into homes of millionaires. Guess he's chilling out on the streets now...
I'm a supporter of higher taxes on the wealthy, as is every Democrat in the race. What I'm tired of is both Bernie and Liz treating wealthy people like they are the cause of every single thing that is wrong in the US.
Some are pretty awful, like the Koch brothers, others are not, like George Soros.
And I personally know a few millionaires and they are decent people and they worked hard for their money and I do not begrudge them that.
They also vote Blue even though it could hurt their bottom lines.
Scapegoating rich people is not a winning strategy.
6
@Steve Cohen
The problem in the USA is billionaires, not millionaires. Bernie and Warren are not complaining about millionaires. They are complaining about billionaires.
A millionaire is someone with a nice house and he a good retirement. plan.
A billion is a thousand millions. It's not the same.
A small business person or farmer can easily have a million dollars in wealth tired up in their business. Small business people as small farmer are not billionaires (unless their business or farm is designed as a tax write off).
A few thousand billionaires now own HALF of everything on the planet. A few thousand people did not create half of the wealth. A few thousand people did not create as much wealth as the other 7 billion of us. The idea that they created their wealth is ridiculous. They turn the productivity of others into their wealth
The only way to get a billion dollars is by manipulating world markets. They demand "free" markets because they can't make billions in fair markets.
These cookies have more money than the 11.8 million millionaires that you mention and the rest of us combined.
Don't side with the billionaire manipulators, like Bloomberg. Small businesses are supoorted by worker/customers, not the billionaires who try to put them it is business so they can have all the customers,
2
Can we just acknowledge that Warren's outrageous claim about what Bernie told her privately two years ago hurt her campaign badly?
I don't think most people want another truth-challenged president.
90
Absolutely agree! It was a cynically political move that was extremely dishonest. Then after losing support declaring sexism is at play; it gets very annoying.
No, she is a bad, inauthentic candidate. There is no double standard. She hoped that tokenism somehow gets voters to want to vote for her. Tokenism is how her entire life has evolved.
25
@EW
I would say it began when she attacked Mayor Pete for his wine cave fundraiser.
Took about 30 seconds for the media to find her 2018 fundraiser in a wine bar with Melissa Etheridge headlining the entertainment and Liz giving out souvenir bottles of wine to people who donated at least $1,000 that night.
Glass houses and all that.
And how many millions from her Senate campaign did she roll over? Money raised from fundraisers just like the one she tried to attack Mayor Pete on.
11
@EW
Exactly. I had supported and donated to her campaign up until that point. No longer. I’m not giving money to or voting for a liar in the primary.
3
Yes, the lack of candidates dropping out after Iowa was telling wasn't it.
New Hampshire should be the where Devil take the hindmost will really show.
Are some candidates in it just to dilute the numbers?
Can you say brokered convention anyone?
6
@Dobbys sock I don't think anything changes until at least South Carolina. Iowa and New Hampshire just are not a good representation of the voter demographics of the country. Especially when you are trying to factor the impact of voters of color which will be significant in this Democratic race to the nomination.
3
@Dobbys sock
Apparently the culling has begun.
1
“She reminds me of every best teacher I ever had,”
Yeah, nice endorsement... but how many people really want one of their best former teachers as president?
16
This NH primary voter does!
19
The ones who are tired of the play yard bully being in charge.
21
@Rachel Doughty The trouble is, even in the playground, we didn't want the bully to be charge... but too often they were.
Warren is smart and tough. Everytime I hear a negative comment on her I just do my own searching and most often find that it was taken out of context.
Tonight I'm voting for her.
597
@Clayton Marlow
Warren is in denial.
She lost Iowa where she had to do well. Fourth place is not well.
She will lose NH, too. By a large margin.
She is going down but like an alcoholic refuses to face reality.
At least she can help Bernie lose the nomination when she shows up at the convention.
6
@Clayton Marlow
She misled us about her own corporate fundraising as she attacked others for theirs. Misled us about taxes and costs for her m4a plan. Misled us about her pose as a crusader for regular folks, having helped Dow Chemical shortchange women who were made sick by their breast implants, and having helped the steel industry avoid paying health costs for old sick coal miners.
7
@Clayton Marlow
And how is her putting that she was Native-American on her Harvard faculty profile being taken out of context when it is pointed out that she lied about this.
1
It is amazing the spin the press puts on this--not just on this page but elsewhere.
The outcome in two tiny states is drving a narrative regarding the viability of Senator Warren's campaign. This is so nonsensical.
In two contests, no serious number of delegates have been in play. Delegates are needed to secure the nomination. You would think reading this narrative, that this was Super Tuesday.
This is a broken process and the press merely enables it.
680
@Sendero Caribe I absolutely agree with you. They're should be 1 primary day for the country on the Tuesday after Memorial Day, and extend the national holiday so everyone gets a 4 day weekend. And, while we are at it, make the General Election in November a national holiday too. And no more caucuses ever again.
77
@Sendero Caribe I agree 100%. We shouldn't let two states control the prospects of our candidates. Warren is by far the smartest most qualified candidate I've seen and yet she sits in third place over what is likely less enthusiasm by young people. Yeah, platforming on educated policy is boring. I want boring. But do caucus goers? Likely not.
32
@Sendero Caribe
Corporate media habitually promotes and defends billionaires because billionaires own controlling shares in all mass media.
Warren says bad things about billionaires, so the media attacks Warren.
Bloomberg got more coverage in three days before he announced than the current mayor of NYC got in his first the months of campaigning? If any other canidae ran a race like Bloomberg the media would make fun of it, but Bloomberg is a billionaire all they just assume he is the best candidate.
Trump got elected because corporate mass news helped him win by mostly omitting his disasters and constantly covering his insults.
Read between the lines and follow the money. Mass news has a point of view determined by, for, and of global billionaires.
18
Many of us wish you were focusing on Amy Klobuchar who hasnt made the same spotlight with repetitive angry virtuosity wanting what the other guy has and potentially creating financial doom for our country as many countries operating on her modalities have suffered from. Not to mention how grating the Warren lecturing scolding and knowing all the complicated answers wears on the citizens around!
Lets use our soapboxes to focus on experience and a female voice that isnt about being female but about being a sound wise smart and skilled leader!
15
@nancy novice That would be Elizabeth Warren.
1
This story is hard to read. Voters are so fickle.
If you care about the Warren campaign, volunteer for an hour or two today to keep her in the race. You can text or call voters to be sure they get to the polls.
I still believe she would make the best president of the bunch. But we have to do our part to get her there.
305
I could go for a Bloomburg-Klobuchar ticket. If Sanders wins the nomination I cannot see any of the current candidates being his running mate. Could Booker or Harris be his VP?
7
@DC Oh no, not more self-promotion of Amy Klobuchar. I can't stand it if she becomes the VP nom!!!!!
7
@kay They are all self-promoting. Politics is half that and half tearing down your opponents.
1
@DC
Sanders has previously said that he'd be looking for a woman of color to balance out the ticket.
The news peeps ran a story awhile back that his staff/advisors were looking into whether Warren could be VP and Treasury Secretary both at the same time.
https://theintercept.com/2020/01/17/sanders-warren-vice-president-treasury-secretary/
1