I’m white, Ivy educated, female, and DID NOT swoon. Even with the sound off, she was unbearable. Will enjoy hearing of and not watching or listening to her I quit speech.
41
@kryziak I'm curious as to why you feel that way.
3
@ Kryziak. You say that with the sound off she was unbearable. If that’s the case then you clearly are judging by her looks, a woman. Please if you support another candidate, just say so.
6
@Doc no, it’s the motorized bobble head on high speed thing. Bernie does it too, but without the bobbing.
4
Another perspective on Elizabeth Warren - too much of a Bernie clone and then the Native American tale, the woman who shamed opponents into self financing and is now funded by a super PAC, her “plans” - the Medicare for all flop. Interesting you use the term “wine rack crowd” for the woman who tried to shame Pete for his CA fund raising. Yes she did a great job after the housing crisis but many still suffered. She is preaching, angry, divisive, and has a cheerleading mentality. All for women but you need to be for men too.
10
One version of this is that intelligent, ambitious, serious girls grow into well- and over - prepared women who always face those patriarchal headwinds. As a female you are judged by many things -- but rarely on whether you have demonstrated that you can do the job. That has changed in certain arenas but not politics. [Had Elizabeth Warren kept emphasizing her struggles, she would have been attacked as a fake -including by her own fellow dems]
It would have been smart if her campaign HAD packaged her real story into catchy ads that reached a broad spectrum of voters - - because most don't go much beyond appearances, TV coverage, and ads to make their decision.
And i think that network and cable TV has often been less focused on her that on other candidates ( which happened to Amy Klobuchar as well).The simple fact that her NAME was not out there as much as certain peers means she was less known.
It is so discouraging.
11
So non college educated white people and people of color don't like her and college educated people do. Who do those without a college degree like and why? Joe Biden? Bernie Sanders? Trump?
It's the same old, same old all over again and again and again.
Noting new here as this country sputters and coughs it's way to what? Stasis? Minuscule incremental changes?
We may get the desired exodus of Trump...or not...but after everything is said and done what will we be left with, either way?
Not much to nothing.
I still won't be able to afford to get sick and pay my deductible and out of pocket expenses. I still won't be able to afford rent and other day to day expenses if work slows down much more than it already has. In a gig economy the gigs for what I do are drying up and I have few options.
If I lived in Norway, Sweden, Denmark or Finland I would know that at least my housing, health insurance and day to day expenses would be covered. I would never have to worry that I would be evicted for not being able to pay my rent or that I could put a little food on my table.
I believed that Elizabeth Warren understood this plight of many Americans and sought to begin to try and turn us around, but it won't be happening.
But hey, at least we can hope to build our hopes and dreams on the fact that Trump might be gone.......and then what?
9
Warren is an excellent consumer advocate, looking out for people's interests. She's gone after predatory lending practices as well as credit card companies to protect those that may not understand these companies who give people rope to hang themselves. IMO she should stick with teaching AND consumer advocacy. Gone are the days of Ralph Nadar who exposed corporation's greed and she vocalizes the need for regulations to protect the little guy from the attorneys and lawmakers stripping away consumer protections daily. We could use her continued assistance in this area.
2
I'm sure that if Warren were telling her compelling life story at every campaign stop she would have had the nomination wrapped up by now.
1
She is in so many ways the best of the Democratic presidential candidates. Like the Oscars, in the race for POTUS, the best and most qualified candidate don't win. My heart is VERY heavy here. It's clear that sexism is still a VERY REAL factor in American electoral politics. Let's be honest, there are a lot of women along with men who simply can't tolerate the mere idea of A WOMAN IN CHARGE. Biden is a band-aid on the very deep problems caused by the DNC's decision to abandon the working-class and poor. And there are valid reasons to question his mental acuity. Meanwhile, Bernie has the correct ideas on how we solve this problem- but INFLEXIBLE doesn't work in the factory of legislative sausage. The reason LBJ achieved so much was because he knew how to flatter, smooth and threaten exactly where and when it was needed to get legislation put into action. Think about those skills held by LBJ, Liz Warren brings them (without the vulgarity, ego issues and lies!) When will our nation ever grow-up?
7
Articles like this one hurt her too. Betsy? Really? Girls do grow up and become intelligent, accomplished women. The media darling was Buttigieg. No nothing, no experience Buttigieg. We would much rather have a Buttigieg or a has been Biden, than a whipsmart woman. Good luck to us.
10
I wonder if you could multiply the number of fawning words written by the New York Times about Elizabeth Warren since the summer by the number of voters across the country who could actually stomach the phony, know-it-all, smug, self-righteous scold, you'd get a number high enough for her to actually have been a serious candidate.
As it is, the "populist for the professional class" didn't even appeal to anyone in her home state beyond the sociology department at Harvard and Smith.
Bury Her Heart somewhere along the long Trail of Tears stretching from Waterloo to Wooster, all places where they recognized someone who built a fraudulent life story on the good intentions of Affirmative Action, then tried to parlay that bogus resume into the White House.
7
Warren needs to support Sanders or she is not a team player.
Its ridiculous that she has not given Sanders her support already.
Postdocs aren’t students. Know the demographic you are writing about.
2
For all Warren represents, after Super Tuesday results
and the final proof that she cannot win the race we need to ask some questions on her insistence to stay in the race.
What is the goal she is going after when the primary one is lost.
Is she aware that by splitting the progressive vote , she does helps the United Moderate one and if she does (which I don’t doubt) does she consider the progressive victory less important then what she is aiming at.
Many seem to forget that Sanders pled with her in 2016 to represent her self as the progressive candidate, vowing his support if she does. Warren refuses and Sanders ran himself. She held her endorsement till the last moment and then gave it to Clinton which did sway some percentage of the liberals toward Hilary, we know how it ended.
I do believe that if she stayed on strong on message and did not changed her mind on healthcare which cost her the front runner place , Sanders would have dropped and supported her with the full strength of his grassroots war machine as he wouldn’t want to split the vote if Warren was leading strongly.
So what she will do today? Will she do the same as in 2016 when she finally went to the establishment camp, which ironically did not bought her any favor with Clinton who considered her as a traitor to have waited so long.. Or she will do the principled act to bring her support to Sanders. Who as we know today dearly need it. According to her own words, her convictions are the same as Bernie..
1
Here's why Warren's campaign collapsed....."My children attended public schools." Total lack of candor.
4
I have no vote. But I have to say that I think Warren would make an absolutely brilliant president and restore to the office strength and dignity. But it doesn’t look, sadly, as if she’ll make it.
12
Clearly, smart, articulate women intimidate many people, both male and female. The factor that stands out most to me in this article is that Elizabeth attracts the more educated, but not enough of them.
So, we're left with one old man in questionable health who stokes the anger of his young supporters and promises them a revolution, and another old man who represents the establishment/status quo, appears frail, stumbles when he speaks, and actually has said, if he's elected, "Nothing will change." No surprise that he appeals to older voters.
Elizabeth is by far the best candidate. She would outmaneuver Trump and get under his skin. I fear voters are sadly mistaken if they think Biden can beat him.
10
I was an Amy person from day 1, but for a while there I toyed with the idea of Warren. In the first two debates she was just brilliant. She reminded me of my mother-in-law and I absolutely love my mother-in-law. Smart, capable and got everything through very hard work.
But I think she really lost that momentum in the later debates. She stumbled badly and never really recovered.
And while I understand her calling out Bloomberg (someone I never wanted in the race) what she did was unwittingly act as Bernie's attack dog. I think he, not she, benefited in the end. This was something Mark Shields pointed out on PBS.
I do think she would have done far better if we had a ranked choice ballot system for all the primaries.
4
She will get a position in the Biden administration. If she dropped out most, not all, of her supporters would drift to Sanders so she is a critical part of the Biden machine. Her ten to 15 percent counts. Her policy stands are disposable.
Odds are she will get Secretary of Treasury as a reward. It will be interesting to see how she will position herself in four years when Bernie is no longer a factor. The fact she wounded Sanders in 2016 and killed him in 2020 suggests a deep personal animus or a completely cynical policy palette. Go to you tube and listen to her colleague Feminist Drucilla Cornell Birkbeck on Elizabeth Warren in London 6/28/2019. I think that thanks to Ms. Warren any progressive change in the US will have to wait for a long time.
3
Any comment like this, which conveniently ignores the fact that Bloomberg outperformed Warren in most states and split Biden more than Warren split Sanders, is wildly disingenuous. Bernie got crushed on super tues- but it wasn’t her fault. She had a valid case for running and that is her right.
5
Politics is about attaining and using power. It's not about lifestyle choices, personal lifestyle choices, and making yourself feel good. Warren has a bunch of wonky plans. Can any readers describe what's in them. Very much like Hillary four years ago. The only Warren policy proposals I can name are the 2 percent wealth tax and greenwashing the Pentagon. Oh, and smoke and mirrors on Medicare for All. Bernie wants Medicare for All, free public college, legalized pot, and the Green New Deal. What am I missing here?
It's no accident Warren appeals to comfortable liberals. She is self -affirming for them. No one else cares about that.
2
This just means you haven’t taken the time to look into her far more complete and better-articulated plans (compared to Bernie). By the way, actually having a plan for passing medicare for all isn’t backing down. It’s having a plan for passing it. Introducing it is not the same thing.
9
I voted for Warren. I would have loved to see her take Trump on in a debate. I think she would have been a great president.
8
This is ridiculous. College educated “swooning” over Warren?? She can’t even win Mass, her own state. Reminds me of Spinal Tap.
Ian Faith:
The Boston gig has been cancelled...
David St. Hubbins:
What?
Ian Faith:
Yeah. I wouldn't worry about it though, it's not a big college town.
9
I'm surprised there is so little concern here about this "dark money" Super Pac donation of 13 million (or whatever it is) - the type of funding that Warren had JUST denounced and attacked Buttigieg about. It's hard to believe. I guess we won't know who's behind this until March 20... the whole thing seems pretty slimy. I haven't heard a good defense for her apparent flip-flop here. Warren seems to have a history of similar, low integrity behavior. She ran for her Senate seat surely knowing that she wasn't intending to keep it, but apparently pretended otherwise to her Massachusetts constituents. I also understand that she transferred 10 million of big donor/PAC money from that race to her presidential campaign, took in another 10 million of big donor/PAC donations before THEN taking the high ground and eschewing this kind of money (though not returning the money or giving it to the party or down-ticket candidates). And now she's back taking it in AGAIN because... she really needs it, I guess? It doesn't look good. Maybe someone can explain this.
9
Bernie and Bloomberg should both endorse Warren.
Super Tuesday votes coming in, the Socialist Senator and Republican Mayor, both divisive in separate ways, are proving in places more popular than that Warren woman. My view is that Sanders has, over time - in the 2016 platform & in the stated goals of most Democratic candidates who sought/seek the nomination - won his idealogical "revolution".
Warren - raised as a Republican, has understandings & proposed plans to implement this revolution. She is persuasive in her evolving achievements and legislation. This ongoing evolution of the Democratic Party establishment - learning and acknowledging mistakes - has in surprising ways been adopted by former Republican Bloomberg - who in his personal life is validating the best of Warren's plans: the original American plan: representation with taxation.
Taxes are essential for civilization & national survival. As "excessive" or "outrageous" Warren's "2% wealth tax" may sound, it's been proven viable by Bloomberg's many years of contributing 3-4% of his net wealth, while seeing his financial fortune grow.
So it seems to me - white male egos (WME) set aside so as to fix the WME driven messes our nation is in now - that Bernie & Bloomberg (WME's who cannot win the nomination alone) should both fully accept & recognize that Warren woman's governing superiority, but also their shared idealogical compatibility.
Bernie and Bloomberg should both endorse Warren.
5
I'll admit to being only a casual observer of the race. I knew nothing of Warren's background until this article.
Here are the facts about Warren that actually penetrated to me:
1. Pocahontas: Just a brilliantly cruel soundbite. I know it's not completely fair but it speaks to my concern about her as a divisive candidate too focused on identity.
2. Calling Bernie a liar - this also related to my concern of her as the divisive candidate.
3. "I've got a plan for that" - sounds like Hillary. No one cares about 10 bullet point plans in 2020. A Republican strategist said it best when he pointed out that every time she releases a long plan, the democrats ignore it and the republicans nitpick the problematic sections. This approach didn't work for Hillary and it didn't work for Warren. Just bad politics.
4. "Same politics as Bernie".
That's about it... not a message that resonates in any way.
The politicians who do well today have a very simple message that resonates - for Obama, was hope and change, for Sanders, it is "I'm going to do something about healthcare and college". Trump says, "I'm going to Make America Great Again." Warren didn't have that at all.
5
Your post is fair. You’re a casual observer of politics, like most of America. The problem is that most of America isn’t particularly deep and doesn’t appreciate nuance. I am exactly the opposite. I don’t mean to imply one is better than the other. The other seems a lot happier to me.
8
@Kevin I SHOULD be in Warren's demographic but I'm not for exactly the reasons you outlined. There's also other shady behavior like the issues around her claiming her kids went to public school when one of them went to a private school and her saying she was fired for being pregnant when in fact, they had offered her the position again but she turned it down. If she lies or distorts minor things, it says to me she will likely lie and distort the major things.
Then there are the flip-flops around Super PACs and Medicare for All.
I'd like to support a female candidate but she's not that person.
8
Actually having a plan for passing, not just introducing, m4a is not “flip flopping”. I will never, for the life of me, understand why this is so hard for many sanders supporters to understand. Activism and implementation are not the same.
2
I think it's impossible not to know a Baby Boomer woman who made some bad choices early in life (such as dropping out of college and the workforce as Warren did when she married), having children with a man who did not take equal responsibility for them, etc.
Maybe they did this because of dysfunctional indoctrination by parents. a legacy of laws that discriminated against women (which are still in place in Oklahoma), or maybe they intentionally did this.
But then they weathered divorces, went back to college, and found a place for themselves in the world, and made things markedly better for Gen-X and younger women.
The problem with Warren, to my mind, is that unlike most some of those women, she's still an apologetic for those mistakes, rather than saying they were mistakes.
2
@Colorado Reader
It's not unlike how Hillary Clinton blames Monica Lewinsky, and makes excuses for Bill Clinton, for the oval office environmental sexual harassment, which is not unrelated to the problematic Clinton Admin family policy framing that gave Gingrich's "Contract on America" traction and placed impediments on Gen-X (aka the "Gen-X stall" in sex equality).
The concept of equal rights/equal responsibility, including for children was foundational to the colonial Delaware Valley and structured into the U.S. Constitution basis in "Person" and/or "Citizen" (the word "Man" is intentionally excluded from the original constitution as well as the operative language of the amendments). When paternity became provable, it became possible to give every child the right, to a legal certainty, to parents taking equal responsibility.
Warren is illustrating the nonsense of Sanders, though, which is a great public service in this election.
1
First, "sinecure" does not mean what this writer thinks it does. I can't recall anyone questioning Warren's work ethic.
Second, the writer's premise, bolstered by those he interviewed, that Warren should have downplayed her education, credentials, and accomplishments, in favor of some Clinton-era folksy persona is both laughable and wearying.
"Sit down and shut up, Betsy, so the boys will like you" seems a more accurate headline.
17
I just wish all the people who think she'd make the best President actually voted for her. It's sad that I'm hearing so many people saying, "She's my favorite, but I don't think America is ready for a female president" or "I'd vote for her, but I don't think she's electable." It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
13
@steve I think she would have made a great president. Alas, I did not and do not think she could have won the general election. This is horrendously unfair, but it is just true.
I do think Amy could have pulled it off had she been able to get past the primary.
1
Sweeping generalizations to follow:
Elizabeth and Hillary are/were the most qualified candidates. Meaning their generation of successful women had to be twice as smart as men and push their way into the fray. Thus they do not play well with others. Politics has interpersonal subtleties that they have no skills in. Their elbows are way too sharp and leave a trail a mile wide. “Basket of Deplorables” and “You called me a liar on TV!”
Obama had to learn on the job and made enough mistakes for another President to learn from.
They are the smart girls in your high school class, who are masters at not seeing the forest for the trees. That kind of Harvard lawyer. Brilliant but not leaders.
Really?! Why didn’t Hillary run in 2020? She was only some two hundred thousand votes short spread over 3 states from winning in 2016 with a 3 million plus majority. Full of excuses and mistiming.
Natural politicians are organically grown. You cannot quickly study your way into becoming one like you would to become an Ivy League lawyer.
Hillary blew it for us and we intuit that Elizabeth will also.
Women can wield Presidential power just as magnificently as men can. BUT these two particular “most qualified” women are wanting as natural politicians. Hillary admitted to that specific failing in 2016. It really foretells something about their hubris and performance.
4
I admire her energy
5
We just need to stop trying to find any other excuses except the fact that America is misogynist. And it’s not just men that are misogynist, but a lot of women suffer from internalized misogyny. Did we forget that a majority of white women voted for Trump in 2016?
12
When it comes to dealing with Trump she has what matters most, teeth.
6
Sen. Warren is smart. I think she is playing out her hand today to see how many delegates and or percentage totals she’ll receive so that she can demonstrate that she deserves to be in the ticket. Frankly, I can’t help but wonder if she’s concluded that the most likely route to the presidency for a woman at this moment is exactly via the VP slot, especially with the two likely candidates at the top being as old as they are. Further, I would imagine she’s calculated that Trump may make a change to his VP and ask Nikki Haley to join his ticket, just to re-energize the evangelicals, hold on to the south, and through a bone to the suburban moms. Warren is the best strategic addition to the ticket.
6
I agree. I voted for Warren, although I don't think that she will win the nomination. If Biden wins the nomination, I think Warren can be and should be his running mate if she finds the offer acceptable. If Sanders wins the nomination she will not provide the necessary balance. Consequently, if Warren does not win, I am hoping for a Biden victory provided that he offers Warren first opportunity to be his running mate.
7
I love Elizabeth Warren. I hope that I am her in thirty years. But, let’s not kid ourselves she was never going to be President - even if she had spent more money selling her bio to working class voters. First, modern political contests are all about image and not about policy - if you happen to be a celebrity and reality TV star all the better. It doesn’t matter if you’ve got all the answers and could save the world, because it’s not really a contest of ideas, but of personality. Second, she may come from the working class, but she’s evolved and is no longer really still of it (although she probably doesn’t fit into the upper class either). While other working class people who have used hard work and education to lift themselves out of it know what a huge achievement that was, especially while also raising children, I reckon that most working class people don’t relate. If anything it just makes them look and feel bad as to why they haven’t done more for themselves. Third, if Warren was elected she might have actually changed things for the better, for women and for the majority. Wall Street and powers that be certainly could never have allowed that. Fourthly, sexism and Hillary’s shadow. It’s very difficult for women to portray themselves as credible leaders, it’s a minefield that male candidates simply don’t have to walk through. Further, after Hillary, people would be rightly concerned that Trump would weaponise this latent sexism against her.
4
Elizabeth Warren is a chameleon... when it was good for her she claimed to be native American, when she was pregnant she quite her job and claimed she was fired, when she was sliding in the poles she stole Bernie's platform. She is the type of grifter who will say anything and do anything to appease a base. "I'm going to stiltedly go get a beer while filming myself"... a la AOC....
8
Her job as a senator is a sinecure? That's outrageous minimization.
8
Is Elizabeth Warren a Harvard elitist?
No, she's a woman paying the sexist penalty every woman running for high office in
America pays.
“Running to be the first female president is another complicating factor. Allies and rivals alike acknowledged her gender has most likely played a role in how she was perceived. . . .
11
I loved her at the beginning. She was focused on the proper role of government -- regulating industry, creating good systems. I liked that she called herself a capitalist and knew how capital markets worked. Her heart was in the right place and she was well prepared for the DC machine.
I wavered when she introduced Medicare for All, a plan completely unworkable financially and at odds with her strength -- that is to say, capably regulating large industry for the benefit of consumers.
Rebecca, it's shocking how many Americans don't understand that medicare for all is much cheaper than the current system and instead claim it's financially unworkable. The private health insurance companies drain off huge profits and the uninsured run to the hospital for problems dealt with much better and much cheaper outside of ERs. Americans spend much more on health care than people in all other advanced economies and nevertheless the results are much worse: most people with health insurance are not covered for everything, and most lose their insurance if they lose their job, and millions have no insurance at all.
It's simple math and logic that health insurance is cheaper if it's not a for-profit activity and is instead a mutual insurance that everyone has to pay for, even while they're young and stupid and think they don't need one because the risk of needing one is smaller.
11
Much cheaper in total, perhaps. But what government program hasn’t gone over budget? And while the total cost may be less, for every uncovered person who gains insurance, there will be those who lose their Cadillac plans.
From Where I Sit, the cadillac plans will be replaced with something much better because the public plan will provide equally good if not better medical care and can't be canceled if people lose their job. In addition, in civilized countries, it's considered uncivilized to give poorer people bad or no health care, and private healthcare insurance holders go to the same hospitals and get the same care and usually only get some nonmedical extras, such as private rooms and rarely e.g. the right to be treated by the head surgeon, who BTW is often less competent than the colleagues who have a lot more routine.
2
Peter Principle?
Elizabeth Warren is a great Senator as Ted Kennedy was, but she seems too lost in the weeds to be the great executive. Happy to be proven wrong, but has she really ever managed a large organization? Even Amy Klobuchar was accused of being a mean boss.
Bernie is a true maverick leading a Progressive movement that he started in 2016 and kept moving with a great vision for America that you can believe in. Not me. Us.
2
Two obstacles (maybe three)have stopped Warren from being the front runner. The first is Bernie Sanders. The minute he decided to run again for the nomination, that action shoved Warren to the side. Sanders never essentially stopped campaigning for the presidency after 2016, and like his polar-opposite, demagogic orange tinted rival, determined that only he could deliver salvation to a ruptured country. Bernie was unwilling to pass the torch.(And I have no doubt he told Warren that a woman couldn't beat Trump.) The second reason is that Warren is a really intelligent, capable, and effective female. America is really stupid about that prejudice: Abigail Adams to John Adams "Don't forget the ladies." The prejudice against powerful women was written in to the constitution just like it was for people of color, and it is still warping our politics. The third might be Warren's purity approach to campaigning, until laws are changed, it takes serious money to win the presidency. Warren gave a fantastic speech on New Years Eve about imagining a better future and how we could actually build that future. It was her "morning in America speech" but her campaign managers and communications team just haven't gotten that that was her big ticket moment of differentiation from Sanders. A flexible mind, a willingness to delve into details, she would make an excellent president, better than Biden or Sanders.
6
Well, did the voters see Trump as a spoiled brat billionaire who got given what he wanted most of the time? At least Elizabeth Warren worked hard for her successes, very hard. She deserves all her success, while Trump just lies,cheats and takes what he wants. Does the public think that is a better way to succeed? I doubt it. It is just a journalist being provocative because it is easy and it works. Maybe the public is afraid of hard work. That is more likely. Warren is an amazing exception. It might scare people.
6
@ronan: Do the work, impress people, go far, and one day people might just pay to hear you talk too.
1
What a petty comment. The fee you can charge -whether you’re a doctor or a teacher - is reflective of the years of hard work and sacrifice you put into gaining your education. You couldn’t earn 400 K lecturing because nobody is interested in what you have to say.
1
In living memory, I have not heard of an unelected politician, an academic even; stand up a new Govt. agency against the wishes of arguably the most powerful elites of Wall street.
Think about that for a moment and let it sink in.
That showed not only passion, but perseverance and an ability to perform, almost a miracle! It also showed who she is fighting for - the very people who shun her because they don't understand her.
Why in this country people look upon education and science in particular elitist is beyond me! Education is obviously a must but in a perverse way the uneducated do not trust her because they don't understand, but wealth, yes, they do!
She knows what the problems are and what is causing them and how to fix them. Her focus is on that, not why she focuses on them which actually shows her heart and who she is fighting for.
People ask what has she done after CFPB, as if that is not enough. What have the other candidates done?
Before we jump to condescend Warren, it is good to remember that it was another female law professor, the first - Barbara Armstrong - who architected Social security for FDR, arguably the best progressive agenda for the middle class and things were looking good for the people until Reagan's trickle down principles literally squeezed the prosperity out of the masses. The bulk of our wealth stayed up, the rest got a mere trickle!
It is time for a passionate progressive with a plan to be our next President, one for the people. Vote!
6
@Phil
While you're recognizing Barbara Armstrong, let me throw in a shout-out to Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor from 1933-1945, and the first female Cabinet member. Common thread between Warren and these two New Deal leaders: dedication to government for the people's well-being and the brains and commitment to craft the legislation to make that happen.
1
I can't see into the future. Warren's is a intelligent women with impressive background, of coarse she will not be the next President. Even if my favorite person is not the nominee, I'm voting for the Democratic candidate. You do the same.
1
I’m white a woman, Harvard grad and undergrad. Elizabeth Warren is insufferable. I’m sure she does not have a plan to address how pedantic she is. Before someone says it’s bc she is a woman- no, I’ve knocked on doors for Hillary and Kamala. It’s her “I have a plan” - life is not linear. I want a candidate who is not rigid and who is not unbearable.
7
@Anonymous
You're not having tea with her, the president is supposed to run the country.
6
@Dan I read Anonymous's post as her wanting someone who is not rigid and not pedantic -- both are legitimate qualities to look for in a presidential candidate. They give as much insight into evaluating how someone will run the country as to whether they will make a good tea-drinking companion.
And my understanding is that one of the most telling characteristics of who someone will vote for for president is whether they would be "comfortable" having a beer with them. So your tea reference may be a better bellwether than a candidate's competence. That seems especially true for Dems, who need to "fall in love" with their candidate.
1
From outside America. Americans for God's sake vote for this great woman
3
A fascinating read. Thanks.
I don’t like Warren. I wanted to like her. She is super high achieving, highly intelligent, very competent, and very articulate — all sterling qualities —but she has that same deep contempt and total disdain in her voice that Hillary Clinton had that turned off so many swing voters. She hasn’t yet used Hillary’s contemptuous phrase “a basket of deplorables” to refer to Trump supporters but it wouldn’t surprise me if she ever did. She tried to publicly shame Senator Bernie Sanders with her calculated “live mike” attack, “You just called me a liar on national television!;” and at a later debate she released a ugly rehearsed attack that eviscerated Mike Bloomberg. No doubt she wanted to publicly humiliate and shame both of these men. Did she lose a lot of men and women voters in those outsized verbal attacks? After these, can she unite our country and bring in the swing voters needed to win the electoral college?
6
Senator Warren is like that beloved college professor who takes you to that "aha!" moment, where suddenly everything that seemed so complex just a few minutes ago now becomes understandable.
6
'“She does talk about her story on the trail, but think about who goes to rallies — well-educated activists, not noncollege voters,” said Meredith Kelly'.
Is that who goes to the Trump rallies, too?
2
Does Senator Warren really need to be a "Betsy" or is just an East Coast snob thing about Middle Americans and a diminishing of Senator Warren.
I shudder at "Betsy" because that's what the senior assisted living care staff called my 1950's to 1960's pediatrician in her obituary.
Only their "Betsy" was Yale Medical School grad before Title IX-- Dr. Elizabeth Harrison. When Yale was designing it's Children's Hospital their "Betsy" and my Dr. Harrison was called in from retirement as a special consultant. "
"Betsy" indeed.
1
I respect Warren.
I just don't like her enough.
2
Maybe if media outlets like your paper had covered Warren more deeply and done profiles of "Betsy from Oklahoma" earlier on in her campaign, people would know. She literally starts every stump speech talking about that story, it's not like it's a secret.
1
I don't care if she's Betsy from Oklahoma, Warren from Harvard, or Sasquatch from Bumblesnoot. She is anti corruption and has a huge stable of detailed plans to address real problems.
The fact that her putting an actual cost on Medicare for all sunk her campaign makes me really sad.
But we don't choose presidents on efficacy, just mythology, then hope for the best.
5
I still think she is the more intelligent and hands on candidate who has proved herself in our nation’s banking crisis, I don’t remember Biden taking on the “ too big to fail banks “ . She took it to the guys who caused the crisis and never backed down, Biden is too bought by the pharmaceuticals and big insurance companies ... what they call “ the establishment “. Elizabeth Warren would be all over this Coronavirus pandemic and our families would be able to trust her facts and the people she surrounded herself with ... experts not political hacks like Trump. It’s time for a smart, proven woman like Elizabeth Warren. These men have had their time ... she’s so much more capable than Biden and Bernie ... so much more !
100
@Patty
Warren lacks discipline and insults people unnecessarily. Most recently, she compared Mike Pence to a dog. This delighted her fans, but won't help her build coalition, which is needed to get anything done. I'm no fan of Pence, but these kind of petty little fights are distractions from critical issues.
Warren also projects a "holier than thou" attitude, but failed to meet her own standards.
While she may indeed be a person of integrity, she was not forthcoming and sometimes gave misleading answers. That leaves an impression of a calculating, inauthentic politician.
Finally she lacks political instincts. She will unfortunately forever be associated with claiming Indian identity and DNA tests.
It is not about her gender.
15
I wish Warren had not been so pressured and abused by Bernie's supporters. Because she lost this race because of people telling her what to do while forcing ideological purity tests on her she handled poorly.
She could have been our brilliant Trojan horse candidate that delightfully surprised us by showing just how smart she was, and just how much we could just leave it to her to assemble whoever she needed to get things done.
Who does't like being made to feel like they at least helped to solve a problem. And everyone hates peolpe that emphasize just how smart they are. Okay, Harvard, is not a compliment in Boston or anywhere else.
Why don't Democrats ever get you can lie about almost anything, but don't ever do that with someone's money. Her unwillingness to just answer the question about how she would finance her health care proposals destroyed her.
She wavered on that and started attacking Bloomberg. It made her look like she was being evasive and deceptive. It ended her campaign despite how good it made a few people feel.
If Warren had such amazing policy solutions, she should have stuck to explaining them using one syllable words if necessary.
The appearance of desperation creates it's own special downward momentum.
Heaven forbid someone should besmirch their ideological purity or their leftist street cred and actually win the Presidency.
The whole Trojan Horse concept isn't rocket science. You would think they taught that at Harvard.
4
Why does the political party that claims it want to put the first women in The White House keep trotting out these remarkably flawed female candidates? The woman they nominated in 2016 was so encumbered by her reputation for untruthfulness that she was turned out to be the only person who could possibly have lost to Donald Trump. And so she did.
And now, we are presented with Elizabeth Warren, who seems unable yet to tell a true story about herself and her "biography". Not to mention her toxic levels of intolerance.
In both cases, we are supposed to believe that it was their gender, and not their obvious and fundamentally flawed characters that doomed their campaigns.
I'll vote for a woman any time for any office, but I won't vote for a blatant liar no matter what.
7
@Jerry B. I'm a woman and I agree with you. They ALL seem to have questionable character. Warren did not impress me with her changing bio, Klobuchar threw binders/ staplers at staff, and Harris seemed to be eyeing the Presidency before she had even done a good job as a newly elected Senator. I actually visited her office regarding some local medical issues and her office was super disorganized. The group of people I was with -- who are the type of people who might have supported her - felt disrespected.
When we had so many candidates, people became overly picky. We were all over taken by so many choices. I think the DNCC was stupid to allow in so many candidates. The race became murky and incoherent. I would also not have the type of debate they have allowed the networks to present. The town halls have been good, and I learned the most there. The debate forum is not replicated in any part of the presidency and does not answer any voters' questions.
I do think Elizabeth Warren is brilliant and would be an excellent President. If she wins the nomination, I'll certainly vote for her. In the meantime, I voted for Saunders because he has the highest poll numbers and best chance of winning. I agree with some of the analysts quoted, Warren probably did not do enough research, has not found what would connect her with voters, or at least yet. Hope she does, would be much, much better than Biden or Saunders - and probably live through out the Presidency. Can't guarantee the other two.
I was going to vote for her but after her dismal showings so far and her churlish attacks on Bloomberg I felt she doesn't have the strong core I thought she did. When she realized the Bernie bros and sisters were not going to budge she swung towards the middle to find it clogged with Biden, Mayor Pete, Amy, Steyer and Mike. With not enough oxygen she has basically withered on the political vine. Too bad. I think she would make a great President and should run next time.
1
Especially considering what a policy wizard she is, it's incomprehensible, shocking, and sad that her campaign was so bad that it gave a wrong impression of her and produced no ads with her wrenching Oklahoma origin story — which is why the less educated and the poor are not yet enthusiastic about her.
1
Well, i am thoroughly versed in Warren's wrenching Oklahoma origin story. Which makes it all the more bizarre that she was a Republican for so long and now opportunistically waffles between progressive and moderate. It's hard to get behind someone who won't take a stand and stay with it. Say what you want about Bernie, but his platform is consistent and coherent, unlike most of the other candidates, whose plans seem more reactive than proactive.
escargot,
On the contrary, it's quite normal that Warren was Republican for so long since many or most poor US Americans still believe the fairy tale and propaganda of the American Dream, even though it was never true for most poor people, even Whites. Warren didn't see reality until she'd gotten enough of an education.
What is bizarre and shocking is how many educated US Americans refuse to see reality even when they know enough about Canada and Europe that they should be able to see thru the lie of the American Dream. Even the hobos and other hardworking but unlucky immigrants often wanted to believe in the lie of the American Dream until they died, but most just stopped writing to their relatives in Europe long before they died because they were too proud to admit they hadn't been successful and couldn't send any money.
1
Do you feel better now Shane?
Got that off your chest, outlining your concept of Senator Warren's "missteps"?
From the very beginning, Warren ran a campaign based on actually having plans and a follow-through on the issues that plague this country.
That's a very solid strategy. One cannot explain why the press methodically treated Senator Warren as "less than" in their coverage.
Too bad voters feel more comfortable voting for old white men making sketchy promises, waving their arms at podiums, without any real track records of planning anything or making a difference.
2
I think this is a miscalculation of broad polling averages of proportionally sampled racial and socioeconomic groups in the USA. The miscalculation being that this sort of sample might represent the population at large instead of the demographic that matters most: the actual electorate itself. Please wait until the results come in before making prognostications of why Warren has failed to catch on with the ‘working class’. This is doubly ironic because the ‘working class’ was one of the only demographics Hillary Clinton carried in 2016, which is a statistic that is convenient for pundits to ignore.
2
If you like Warren, vote for Warren with confidence. She'll make excellent use of whatever leverage she has at the convention regardless of where she ends up placing.
5
I'm in my mid 70s but I've never been willing to accept that a women can't succeed at the highest level in American politics--until now. I deeply admire Elizabeth Warren for her achievements, her compassion, and her keen mind. For the life of me, I can't understand how people cannot recognize what she would bring to the presidency. I'm astonished, befuddled, and - finally - deeply disappointed in our country. She is/would be/ our best chance to dig our way out of the past four years.
10
her plan based platform got early attention simply because we are starving for administrative competence these days (cue bloomberg btw: managerially competent). but a plan to give away health care and college and college loan forgiveness etc. to everybody who sets foot on american soil based on a wealth tax ... just fails. she waves her fingers and says "shouldn't they pay tax on their yachts and jewelry." (meant to rile the "let them eat cake" proletariat.) but no! they paid tax on the income that bought it. (if they didn't, then close the tax code loopholes, but taxing people twice is unconstitutional.) if she is elected all that wealth will get locked up in trusts, lost in the desert, shuffled offshore. compliance zero.
now, what if the republicans said let's have a wealth tax on everyone who owns a car or home or 55" television, or a he went to jared engagement ring? we already do: income tax and then sales tax, property tax, vehicle tax, luxury goods tax, etc.
not gonna work. then what?
2
Sen Sanders rightly complains about unfair treatment by the media and establishment Democratic Party. This is equally true of Sen Warren, who has been an exemplary, articulate, and tireless candidate. Her political erudition and admirable courtesy should have allowed her to do better in the primaries and caucuses.
Searching for reasons for her failure to get traction, I come up with two.
1. Sen Warren has an enormous number of well conceived plans for improving the US. Unfortunately, the country is so focused on celebrity, sound bites, and commercial interruptions that the depth of her programs didn't get a fair airing. If she had been a German politician, ARD and ZDF would have set up special two hour forums with the FRG's best economists to discuss her ideas. Even though beyond the scope of normal voters, they would have learned a lot and the country at large would have had a better chance to evaluate her. Put simply, this is never going to happen in the US.
2. She's a thoughtful progressive and there is such incredible resistance in the media, political classes, and marginal fanatics to a thoughtful evaluation of US political and economic life that it was difficult for Sen Warren to really establish an ideological beachhead.
In a less bewildered and better educated country, serious observers would be looking at the enormous resistance to Sanders and Warren, couple with their appeal. What is going on here?
3
Absolutely dreadful, meandering political strategy for which Warren has nobody to blame but herself. Some examples:
Allowing – no, embracing – that she be branded as the candidate who had many detailed “plans” on her website ensured that she was going to appeal to the uber-eggheads of the Democratic primary crowd and few others.
As it was unfolding, it reminded me of that professor in college who was so excited when handing out a syllabus containing an 8-page list/addendum of “supplemental reading” on the first day of class, and expected the students to likewise be excited about it.
That her campaign spent the most money airing a pledge “not to appoint big donors to cushy ambassadorships” is also telling. Certainly not the kind of pithy campaign slogan that you put on a bumper sticker or a hat. It is not something that middle class or working classes or minority voters connect with, or an issue that would make Sanders voters reconsider her.
And while I enjoy seeing someone raging away at a billionaire just as much as the next person, in those last two debates she squandered her best last chance to distinguish herself from her actual rival among Dem primary voters, Bernie Sanders.
I’m guessing the reason that Warren never was able to project her “Betsy from Oklahoma” roots is because she has long put them behind her and no long is able to.
3
I wanted to vote for Senator Warren, but by the time of my primary (today) she was showing no traction. Instead of going after Bernie, the other "progressive" and gain a portion of that vote, she attacked others. She had a plan for everything, but apparently not for winning.
4
She has no chance to win. If you are a progressive person and you vote for her you are throwing your vote and helping the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. I think Warren is qualified to be president. I think she has good policies, but the enthusiasm is not behind her and she needs to see that and put her weight behind Bernie.
2
A big difference between Obama's and Warren's run for the presidency is how they reached their candidacy. Obama ran as a young newly elected Senator and newly emerging face after a breathtaking speech at a recent nominating convention. And with all her laudable accomplishments, Warren's national exposure grew out of a national need of desperation when Obama turned to her for help in dealing with the ongoing financial crisis, where she already had earned her chops as a professor at Harvard Law. Obama came to us as young, new, energetic hope. Warren comes as a wonkish professor from the most elite college in the nation.
4
For those who, despite Warren having no realistic shot at the nomination, vote for her regardless, I sincerely hope that the good feeling they get from that protest vote is better than the feelings they’ll have later knowing they contributed to Trump having another 4 in office (since Biden will get destroyed by Trump). A friend of mine, who felt good about her Jill Stein vote in 2016, didn’t feel so good about it a year after the fact.
3
EW is about ideas, plans and vision and I for one am swayed. However, some voters may listen to her delivery, i.e., voice, and get turned off. Mary Beard in her wonderful "Women & Power" explains the millenia-old hostility to women's voices and their lack of credibility as orators: I fear Liz may be a victim of this and it angers me. Let us listen to the CONTENT of what people say and use that to base our judgments --and pass along the advice to our children as well.
5
Warren’s very talented, but it’s also clearly true that her rise from Oklahoma to the faculty of Harvard was a consequence of masquerading as Native American. Harvard Law was looking to diversify its faculty &, in addition to being a talented legal scholar, she checked the box. It appears her story about her ancestry was not a lie because she genuinely believed it to be true, but the fact that it’s now apparent it wasn’t is deeply awkward.
5
Senator Warren would make an outstanding cabinet member, perhaps Attorney General or Secretary of State. As a presidential candidate, I cannot get past feeling like I am being lectured to by a Harvard professor regarding how I should be thinking.
3
If Liz were actually socialist, i.e., with a critique of capitalism that is in fact radical, not just reformist, then she might well be my first choice. But Bernie is.
If Liz had not stayed a conservative Republican throughout not only her youth (the 60s & 70s, no less!), but even her mature years until the late 90s (Reaganism), then she might well be my first choice. But Bernie is.
Not that someone can't learn, and become radicalized, at any age. More power to her, and thank goodness she's seen the light, however late.
Still, I really do wonder what was going on, how it was possible, for her to have lived through the social change of the eras of the civil-rights and antiwar movements, for her to remain a Reagan Republican. Her formative years formed her how?
OK, maybe Oklahoma can explain some of it. But still. In 1970 even tiny bible colleges in Kansas went out on strike against Nixon's invasion of Cambodia. Where was Liz? What was she thinking?
She's been radicalized now, and she knows her stuff in the areas she's studied. But there's more to it than that. She's definitely heard the bells tolling, but I fear she still hasn't much of a clue where they hang.
"Capitalism to the core" only goes so far, in terms of understanding what's going on and what needs to be done.
Welcome, Liz! We all need you, and you're very good. But Bernie gets my primary vote.
And yes, I do wish our candidate were a woman, and a minority... Alas, Bernie isn't. That's OK for now.
2
Drew, thank you for the best summary of Warren i've seen, and eloquent and pithy to boot!
1
I knew many young women like Senator Warren growing up
in the Midwest.
Far more intelligent than their husbands but held back by
societal expectations that they raise a family first and then
maybe find something to do outside the house.
They grew up in a world that was not fair.
Sadly, politics is even more unfair.
She would be such a better President than Biden
and she would be able to get more done than Bernie.
After Super Tuesday the media will ignore her and the
pundits will clamor for her to drop out of the race.
Senator Warren go and find your Mother's dress that got
her that job at Sears that kept the family afloat during dire
times and put it on and wear it all the way to the Convention
and don't drop out, don't give in, don't do what the DNC wants
you to do, but keep fighting for what you know is right and
best for America and its citizens.
6
Personally, I dig Elizabeth Warren. I think she would make a good President. I think she would take us in the right direction. I agree with @Scandiphile. Saw Ms. Warren on Moyers, as well. Liked her ever since.
12
Unlike Elizabeth Warren, who is auditioning for a senior position in the Trump Election Campaign, Amy Klobuchar has demonstrated she has the right stuff. Klobuchar has a bright future serving not just the Democrats but, more importantly, America, preferably as Biden's Vice President and then, in 2024, as our first female President.
Pete Buttigieg has shown real character and understanding, as well as an honorable appreciation for the greater good. He, too, has a bright future ahead of him as a high level elected and/or administration official. A few more years of seasoning will serve him well, should he choose to amplify his service to America.
Meanwhile, let's keep in mind that California has a semi-open primary allowing Republicans, who have publicly announced a campaign to do such, to cross over and vote for the Democratic candidate -- Sanders currently -- who they view as the least threat to Trump's reelection. I think it is reasonable to assume that such might add a couple points to Sanders vote. In any case, winners should not be declared for any open or semi-open primary, unless there is at least a 10% differential between the top two candidates.
3
Where is the evidence of that prognosis? That Reps will vote for Bernie?
I think too much emphasis is given to the positive effects of rags to riches stories on success in politics. Warren, Klobuchar and to a lesser extent Harris have evoked childhood experiences to garner political points. Yet none connected effectively with working class voters and even less with their male voters. It may well be that a subset of the latter distrust the ability of female candidates, as it appears to have happened in the 2016 elections, where, surprisingly, many flocked over to Trump, the veritable poster child of inherited wealth. Warren also miscalculated the absorbance rate by working class voters of her plethora of policies and plans, over committing to them instead of showing voters her vision of a healed and thriving future of our nation. She also shared with Sanders a lack of reality check of what is achievable in the present time of a deeply politically divided nation, exactly the reason for the present split among the democrats as to whom they should choose.
5
I did not vote for Ms. Warren this morning. I observe that we overemphasize who's President. I want us to make the Senate a Democratic Party majority. I want my Senators to stay in place and gain seniority. People don't seem to think about this much. I'm sure we here will continue to vote for Senator Warren to represent us in the Senate. I believe our country will be best served if we can have Senator Warren as the Chairwoman of the Finance Committee, or better Ways and Means, or maybe Appropriations. It seems that now we need the same party in control of both Houses of Congress and the Executive branch for our government to get anything done.
4
I saw Ms. Warren on Jimmy Kimmel's show last night and she was fantastic. She should point out her humble beginnings, in her video ads and in person, which I posit will bring a lot more swing voters and people with the wrong idea about her, into her favor.
To all the naysayers on the board today about her past missteps, there is not a One of the current or past candidates, on either side of the aisle, that has not made them. She has been forthcoming about them, certainly 100% more than our current Criminal, er, Commander in Chief.
Finally, as I have said here before, I still think her and Biden would be a good match, if someone could get them to talk to each other. Bernie's people will not vote for either of them. And I sincerely believe they would balance, complement, and keep each other honest - and she'd push him further and be an extra conscience or advocate when it comes to negotiating with Congress; her quick command of the facts is an asset.
The only problem is working out between them who gets to be the Chief and who would be the VP; I'm not sure Joe would accept VP again, or that she would either. However at any rate, please give her a chance. I maintain that the majority of this country is not ready for someone who refuses to drop the work "socialist" from his title, period.
13
The disconnect between Warren's ideals and her base of support is revealing. I think Warren is sincere, smart and committed - far more progressive than any recent mainstream candidate. Yet she speaks of her candidacy as a social movement, and it is not. I notice this very clearly when I step outside my professional social circle (who overwhelmingly support Warren) and talk to folks who are younger, poorer, or not based in DC or NY (who support Bernie). Among this section of the left it is the teachers strikes, single payer pushes, housing advocacy, $15/hour, and anti-ICE activism that has invigorated their support for progressive causes, and for Bernie. For many within my Warren circle, there is a strong desire to be part of a movement but generally that has taken the form of one-offs, like the Women's March and GOTV drives, or online expressions of positions or values. These are very different types of activism, with different bases of support.
For a long time Dems have been telling poor and working people that they are not smart enough to come up with solutions to their own problems. Politicians mocked things like $15/hour and promised that 1000 page plan was way better. But there is a shift away from technocrat condescension. The problem with Warren is that she is a regulator in a revolutionary moment. The "I have a plan for that" doesn't resonate because people want to be part of the change now, not the subject of a plan.
10
Liz, thanks for this excellent analysis!
1
Hands-down the best choice for America - and to win against Trump. She's a moderate progressive (if that's even a term?) and has the ideological chops to win over Bernie supports and the midwest. Warren/Klobuchar ticket? My dream team!
16
This country should stop worshipping wealth and start admiring brains.
30
The US is could have had one of the greatest presidents since FRD. And your country needed someone like FDR, judging from what I have been reading in the NYT since I took a subscription. (This was the day after Trump got elected, and I know quite a number of fellow Europeans who subscribed on the same day.) Crumbling infrastructure and schools, people needing to do two jobs to make ends meet: That is just crazy for a wealthy country.
Sanders is a far more mediocre intellect than Warren, with no concrete plans, who thinks he knows best. A typical man of his generation. I blame him for this: What a bloody waste!
21
At first I eally warmed up to Warren, but a steady streamof stupid, ill thought out comments and her tiresome, what I call her Hermione Hogwarts Waving, wore out her welcome with me. Comments like - I will never use a nuclear weapon first belied the fact that battlefield nukes are part of our arsenal to save amercian lives in a case where we are hopeless outnumbered. Full disclosure, as a draft lottery winner, I served in Germany where is was a very, very real possibility. Diplomats cushy postings, I spent 8 years as expat with many foreign service friends, the cushy jobs come at a price, not the campaign donation - a lot of emabssy entertainment is on Ambassador's dime. She apaprently never took the time to find that out. Her economics undertsanding are poor, wealth tax is very arguably unconstitutional, Art 1 sec 4 and 14th amendment I recall. So to stake a large part of her plans on dubious funding was dumbfounding to me. Cumulatively, bad candidate not as smart as she pretends to be. Great debater of a certain style, she and Bill Clinto would have been interesting match, but think he is 3 x faster on his feet than she.
3
I’ve learned a lot about Elizabeth Warren by reading about her rather than listening to her. How many working class people, however, have the time or inclination to read op-eds in order to research the candidates. Ms. Warren is either an abysmal rhetorician (which is very strange for a tenured Harvard law professor), or maybe, just maybe she’s ashamed of where she came from and would rather be seen as Professor Warren than the daughter of a janitor.
3
Huh. I thought Buttigieg cornered the market on "wine-track Democrats" at Hall Rutherford (the infamous wine cave fundraiser, if you're not from the SF area... which the writer of this article supposedly is).
Huh. I thought that term went out of style after the whole "Obama = wine-track, Clinton = beer-track" debacle of the 2008 primaries made pundits realize it was both meaningless and inaccurate.
Huh. I participated in two canvassing events and a phone bank, and I was never asked about Warren's upbringing. Instead, people had questions about how she intends to deal with specific, quantifiable issues that they face in their daily lives. They also consistently asked me if I thought she would be able to cooperate with Republican representatives and senators, if elected.
Huh.
8
In many ways Waren reminds me of Jennifer Lopez. The actress puts in an adequate performance in a film and has her army of publicists announce that she's in the running for all sorts of awards. Wanting awards is not the same as deserving awards. Warren did a good job on the consumer protection stuff awhile back; alas, it's all being dismantled now. What has she done since then? Run a rather hamfisted campaign predicated on the principal that she deserves it. The DNA thing, the flip flops, the lame commericals, the misplaced attacks on Bloomberg all indicate that she's hardly the slam-dunk she considers herself to be. She's not winning because she's not the a very good candidate. She might have some good ideas but she will not win the election.
6
The NYT and other media clearly know her bio and her legislative accomplishments. But they choose not to feature either and instead have created and are pushing a story line that a Biden- Sanders- Bloomberg choice is a foregone conclusion. Why no stories comparing Warren- Sanders effectiveness and experience?
15
Note to Paul Begala: I’ll take an intelligent woman like Elizabeth Warren, who pulled herself out of poverty to rise to the heights of her profession (but who still remembers what it’s like to be poor) over a slick operative like Bill Clinton, who also rose from poverty but embraced wealth and power even as he traded on ‘feeling the pain’ of those he left behind in Arkansas. Were Warren to become president, I don’t think we would see policy swerve rightward as it did in the 90s, and I don’t think we would see a tough on crime regimen that threw a lot of black men in prison. I don’t think we would see the WH become a cheerleader for the financial investment industry. Mr. Begala, you can keep your Potemkin candidates; I’ll settle for the genuine article.
14
How many more times will we see her pop open a beer to show she is just one of us? Trying a bit too hard to overcome the Harvard thing.
6
She’s the best of the candidates. She could decimate Donald Trump on the debate stage.
12
I'd vote for Warren but it won't matter by the time NY State holds its primary. I want my leaders smarter than I am. Can't someone besides an old white male be President?
12
She is not my candidate. However.....
A good friend of mine was one of her students in the 1990s and my friend spoke highly of her even then. She was the kind of woman who encouraged other women to find and use their voices. She was the kind of professor who challenged people's thinking, their moral code, their logic. She was an uplifter.
Her policies are too left of center for me but I would sleep soundly knowing that someone who is both brilliant and deeply moral would be at the helm of this country. I am leaning towards Biden, yes, but don't count her out just yet. Tonight may just upend everything and that would not be so bad.....
11
As much as citizens say they want policy proposals, that's not why they elect presidents. They elect presidents because of vision not policy.
Even people with "bad" vision like Trump gets selected over a wonkish policy analyst with no vision.
Obama didn't get elected because of policy, he got elected because he presented a vision of Hope and Change.
Bill Clinton likewise didn't get elected because he had great policy proposals, he got elected because he presented a vision of America that many folks wanted to follow.
Biden and Warren lack vision and are destined to lose. This is Sanders time.
1
@Diana They lack vision??? Warren's vision is that the USA treat even the least of us with dignity. Universal health care, in whatever form, a living wage, and a free and appropriate public education IS a vision in these heartless, me first times. Covid45 gave us that vision...
2
Anyone thinking about the moment after the debate when Warren was talking to Bernie about a comment he made in the past about women running for the presidency? It was just a moment but I think it impacted a lot of people's perception of her.
4
I just voted for Warren in California. The machines used here now show a verification of the paper ballot that is submitted so you can confirm that the machine is registering your vote correctly. I'm really glad to see that. I wish all states had a verification process like that.
9
It was refreshing to see someone try to campaign on actual plans rather than imagery, slogans and, if not quite empty, certainly not fully baked, promises.
It seems that too many voters just don't respond to the practical without the fluff packaging.
Maybe it's anti-climactic to see exactly how everything would work out. Where's the drama in that?
5
Interesting article but what's missing is recognition that Warren was, in fact, leading in polls earlier in the race and viewed as the front runner. Aside from misogyny and campaign mistakes, what was the reason for her not doing better? Were the early polls just bad or not predictive of actual voter sentiment? Did Warren's re-positioning of her Medicare for All stance hurt her with progressives? The disagreement with Bernie over whether he said that a woman couldn't defeat Trump? The adamant opposition to her from Wall Street Democrats and wealthy donors?
4
leading on what polls? She hasn't taken a decent share of candidates in any state so far.
I voted for Warren this morning. She would make the best president out of that large field of candidates. Let the pundits tear her down as much as they want. I voted for the best candidate and my conscience rests easy.
12
The problem I see with Ms Warren bid is a delivery of a message. Every time I listen to her I have the impression that she is delivering an academic lecture and we students should listen because what she says is truth and only truth and she gets frustrated that we do not grasp the subject.
3
I have always voted for Senator Warren and will continue to do so as she is the class of the Democratic candidates aspiring to the presidency. If anyone doubts her authenticity and trajectory, just compare her to Bloomie who has happily enjoyed several 'the emperor has no clothes' moments in the past few weeks. Bloomie grew up in a working class suburb of Boston and amusingly traded his strong pahk ya cah accent for his current distinctly bogus Queens accent when he became a New Yorker. More importantly, his wealth is based on a system which merely updates financial data so that the rich can become richer. It exacerbates the income divide without improving the lot of the remaining 99 %. There is really nothing authentic about this martinet. One could easily go on with Biden's trajectory as well. Bernie is probably not so bad, but Senator Warren is just much more clever than Bernie.
7
I knew Liz Warren between Betsy and Professor Warren. She was my classmate at Rutgers Newark Law School, class of 1976. She was a super student and a knowledge sponge. She was studious, but approachable. I remember the end of our last semester. She finished exams about 2 weeks before giving birth to her second child.
I voted for her today. She is the smartest on the podium, and I share her outrage over Bloomberg's dynamite the pond effort to get the nomination.
18
Her campaign is stubborn in the way Hillary Clinton’s was. As a passionate supporter of hers I emailed many times about the need to stay focused on her brand of economic justice through financial regulations.
She was ill advised to go after Bloomberg because he was no threat to her positioning and candidacy the way sanders is.
3
Yes, of course, because we’re women, we “swoon.” Sigh... Sorry, but the last time I “swooned” was after playing soccer for 2 1/2 hours in 90-degree heat.
I’m voting for Elizabeth because she has wonderful progressive policies and the plans to actually get them enacted. She is brilliant and has a history of being able to reach out not only to other, more moderate members of her own party, but across the aisle as well, to enact legislation and effect real, positive change.
Moreover, there is still so much deep sexism in our culture that for a woman to get to where Elizabeth has gotten, she will need to be -more- qualified than a man in a similar position. Remember: Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, but backwards and in heels.
We women are made to go through -life- backwards and in heels.
12
This article is missing key facts of how Warren has presented herself at debates. In every debate I heard her discuss events of her life and connect them to the issues she was fighting for. I never heard Bernie do this. In fact, on 60 Minutes, when Anderson Cooper asked him about this, Sanders said he preferred not to get personal. Why not measure the other candidates for this quality in this article? Warren basically can never win with the media.
9
Warren was/is the best candidate. Sadly, We lose again.
8
Hers is a compelling story and would probably do a good job as president. However, since this story is about how we see her today, I can't get the Curch Lady from SNL out of my mind.
2
It always amazes me when 'progressive" ideas, agendas, and philosophy are discussed and bantered about as if they are a legitimate and useful way to organize a society.
1
@Jeff Foreman The entire 20th century was predicated upon a Progressive ideas. Good lord, read a book.
2
The article seems to assume that working class voters want someone who is also working class. It seems like the answer to that is “sometimes.”
Trump wins uneducated voters despite having inherited a fortune. And some better presidents, too, have had anything but a working class upbringing yet won strong support from working class voters. FDR and JFK were hardly “up from the bootstraps” stories.
It’s not clear that Warren’s failure to get her bio out there mattered.
(I happen to like Warren but prefer other Dems in the race.)
1
Warren is not leading with progressive voters because she didn't run in 2016. Sanders ran in 2016 and he took the hits for it and kept on organizing.
It's been great to have both Warren and Sanders in this race. I'm sorry that inferior male candidates have stolen the show from her. But so called centrists are not going to make space for Warren any more than they are making for Sanders and if voters want a progressive president they are going to have to rally around the one who is leading.
2
Yeah, maybe it's true that if you make people think too hard you're through in this business.
I'm sure going to miss her energy.
4
The sexism is huge. Clinton and Obama made something of themselves and were lauded for it, but if a woman does the same, she is not. Granddaughter of blue collar workers and daughter of a teacher, I am the first in my family to go to a (highly ranked) law school. I hear this stuff all the time. While it is not easy, there are plenty of women like Warren and me who have done well for ourselves. I don’t look down on working class people nor those from the middle of the US. But I also point out that choices have consequences: if you don’t work hard even in high school, you will have trouble with college. If you won’t move away from your hometown, your options may be limited. If you are unwilling to sign up for grad school, you will probably have a lower paying job than with a higher degree. I was unhappy in my top-20 law school, largely because it took me away so much from my kids who were 4 and under 2 when I started. But (with the support of my husband, my biggest cheerleader,) I got through it and onto a good career path. When my husband was laid off, I supported us.
Unless you come from wealth, chances are you will have to work. That being the case, get the best education and job that works for you so you are not in the situation of Ms Warren’s mother.
2
Both Bernie and Biden have their strengths. What worries me are their weaknesses. This is why we have Liz and Mike. Democracy, like the virus, is a self-learning system that seeks to optimize its own survival. It’s much too soon to count Betsy from Oklahoma out.
5
The oft-unspoken “message” sent to women like myself over time was that to be on par with men, we had to be ambitious, educated — overeducated, even — in order to climb the greatest ladders.
We’ve managed to send three women (Clinton, Warren and Klobuchar) from the first generation to overwhelmingly succeed in those areas to fight for the presidency, yet the timing coincides with America embracing anti-intellectualism.
Exactly what does this country want from its women in order for them to be acceptable for positions of power?
7
Warren's plans are a liability, Mr. Trippi? I remember Ross Perot doing well as a 3rd-party candidate because -- in part -- of his charts and graphs.
What does emotional appeal look like in a female presidential candidate? There aren't examples of success by which to judge this.
4
I spent my career litigating cases in federal court. One thing I learned early on is that the smartest lawyers were most often successful with the judge, but not necessarily with the jury. A corollary principle was that a jury comprised 12 (or less now) people who were not smart enough to get out of serving. In interviewing jurors after they reached a verdict it was often shocking what they found significant in the testimony and other evidence on which to base their decision. As a lawyer it critically affected the case you put on -- you had to present all the evidence and argument that appealed to smart people to make sure the judge and the appeals court would go your way if it came down to it, but you also had to present stuff that appealed to ordinary laypeople as jurors who simply might not appreciate the facts and arguments that you knew were more relevant as a matter of law. It seems to me that political campaigns require a similar calculus.
5
@RunDog I agree. Not a lawyer but a scientist/ physician who has often worked with simply brilliant people who don't do a good job conveying ideas to people less brilliant than them or who are lay people. They drone on about details, use jargon, and don't try to use examples from people's daily lives that the audience can relate to.
In organizing medical conferences, we often try to choose keynote/ plenary speakers who are not only smart but able to communicate and connect with the audience well.
I have great respect for Ms Warren and really like her as the best candidate for president.
She is highly intelligent, tenacious and has shown as the head of the CFPB that she really has the best interest of ordinary citizens first and foremost.
Unfortunately here in the US many voters are happy to excuse male candidates for major issues but unwilling to excuse minor issues in female candidates. As an example the native american drama.
Unfortunately here in NY we have primaries late in the schedule, hoping she can hang in there until then.
11
Elizabeth Warren has proven herself a fighter of corruption. Full stop. She is anti-oligarchy and a woman. In other words, the men in power will never let her in, Democrats included.
263
I am so sad that she's been eclipsed by recent press coverage. I voted early for her! I'm glad she hasn't given up.
26
@Christine Feinholz
@Christine Feinholz
I agree in large part. But let's not be defeatist. I would argue that she is already in. The question now is how far can she go? That depends on many factors, including her capacity to develop an effective political strategy and tactical operation that takes into account the long view.
Sanders has been running for 5 years and building a base along the way. She is the natural heir to Sanders' legacy and leadership
of the progressive movement, with a great capacity to broaden that base with moderates. She must not do anything to jeopardize that position. She cannot afford to alienate the progressive base she may inherit. They are her natural allies and a future foundation of political power. She must consolidate her position there and build outward.
Assuming she has no path to the nomination, being Sanders' running mate would be optimal, or failing that, being Biden's running mate. Apparently, Biden wanted her as a running mate when he considered running in 2016. But ultimately, Warren must prioritize the strength of the progressive movement over her own immediate ambitions. That choice should pay future dividends.
7
@Christine Feinholz
I agree in large part. But let's not be defeatist. I would argue that she is already in. The question now is how far can she go? That depends on many factors, including her capacity to develop an effective political strategy and tactical operation that takes into account the long view.
Sanders has been running for 5 years and building a base along the way. She is the natural heir to Sanders' legacy and leadership
of the progressive movement, with a great capacity to broaden that base with moderates. She must not do anything to jeopardize that position. She cannot afford to alienate the progressive base she may inherit. They are her natural allies and a future foundation of political power. She must consolidate her position there and build outward.
Assuming she has no path to the nomination, being Sanders' running mate would be optimal, or failing that, being Biden's running mate. Apparently, Biden wanted her as a running mate when he considered running in 2016. But ultimately, Warren must prioritize the strength of the progressive movement over her own immediate ambitions. That choice should pay future dividends.
1
When Bill Moyers used to feature her on his show before she entered politics I often found myself thinking, “If only this passionate, intelligent, articulate lady who really gets the way our economy is rigged would someday run for President.”
Now she is America. Grab this opportunity!
246
White , college educated woman here. No swooning here. She seemed as disingenuous as they come from her deepening Oklahoma drawl, to her attacks on Bloomberg to her obvious pandering. I hope she’s gone after today and I never have to hear from “Liawatha” again.
11
You are being unfair. She truly thought she was part Native American because her father’s family objected to his marrying Warren’s mother, believing that Warren’s mother did have a Native American background.
7
@Demelza
Yes, I'm getting a little tired of all her talk of "babies".... Most 14 year-olds don't like to be referred to as, a "baby".
3
The problem is that climbing from near-poverty to success by virtue of your intelligence doesn't resonate with voters who know they aren't smart enough to do the same. On the other hand, many do think that they could succeed in life by being a con artist and liar.
33
@Steve
Near-poverty? Her neighborhood was affluent, her fellow high school students were known among other high schoolers as "silkies" (because they were thought to sleep in silk pajamas). Her family's suburban house was not at all shabby, nor was their new oldsmobile. She was actually middle class (the medical-related blip she likes to talk is an outlier), she was excepted almost right out of college into law school and shortly thereafter married a law school faculty member, and quickly advanced within academia because of her abilities - and probably other stuff (like many people). Maybe someone can clarify this if I've got any of it wrong. Honesty is always the best policy.
1
I’m not sure people really care about politicians’ personal narratives. It always sounds like just so much transparent politicking. Liz is great, but her upbringing matters little. She probably would’ve done better to stick to her core anti-corruption message. I respect how Sanders doesn’t get into his background when he’s on the stump; he doesn’t try to prove his working-class bona fides. He just sticks to the issues.
4
If she were a man she would be the front runner. I have no doubt in my mind this is true.
She is amazing.
37
@Luze
Amazing? In addition to her past (playing very loose with the truth) and her financial schemes bordering on illegal; think about this. Could she direct a drone to kill terrorists? Could she sell rice to China? Can she flap her arms when talking to Kim in North Korea? Many more traits which make her a disaster as President. Please go back to the Res.
3
As an Oklahoman, it was baffling to myself and others in the state who were also fond of her as to why her Oklahoma roots were not explored more by her and her team. As the article correctly points out, her inability to connect with working class people was a major issue yet in debates or ads, scant mention of her upbringing in Oklahoma. That was a missed opportunity for her to flip the perception of her as this northern elite type. What a shame as I much prefer her to Bernie when it comes to the progressive left of the Democratic Party.
12
I am so sick and tired of Americans predilection for "people like them" "average Joe/Jane" to run the country. To run the darned country I do not want somebody with whom I can have a beer. I want the smartest, sanest, most educated, competent, most capable person. We have higher standards for dog walkers than for president, for crying out loud!
58
@Rosie
"Every thinking voter will support you."
"That's great, but I need a majority."
3
Yes - but the sad thing is, Elizabeth Warren is both.
5
I absolutely agree. But then I’m white (until there’s a pogrom) and college-educated, so maybe that’s why.
1
Elizabeth Warren is clearly the most capable candidate. But she doesn't sound or act like Betsy from Oklahoma. Being a woman, her candidacy might be more successful if she did. There's been too little "down home" and too much "uptown" about her, such as her plans she pulls out of hats at a moment's notice, her rather vast knowledge of many topics, plus her Harvard credentials. Her story, daughter in a poor family, waiting tables at 13, marital divorce and on to becoming a law professor is really dazzling but may not have the same impact as it would if she had been a poor boy. More gender discrimination? I think so. She would be a president to restore dignity and competence to that office and a model to inspire girls (boys too) everywhere. I will miss her on the national scene.
17
Warren’s whip smart, and I’d be content to see her as president. However, I haven’t been a supporter because of her propensity to traffic in class-based vitriol. As much as I might support raising taxes for those with more means, any candidate who sells cups decorated with the slogan “Billionaire Tears” is not really committed to unifying the country. That’s a poor campaign message. Our country’s goal should be to create an America in which fewer people are hurting, not one in which a new class of people, even the very rich, are made to “hurt,” even if “hurting” is just a matter of political rhetoric rather than economic reality.
6
I think she should have run with less of the same Bernie rhetoric and set herself further apart from him. She is nothing like him. I wish she had fully been herself which is clearly not as radical and reckless as Bernie. And look how his campaign treated her. The far left is also full of bullies . I wish she could do it all over again bc I think she would make an outstanding president. I trust her. Something I long to do for a leader . I am not convinced Bernie knows what he is doing . I think we crave stability right now, this has been a crazy four years . I’m exhausted . Everyone is mad at everyone else. I finally wrote a card to my trump supporting uncle. I love him. I’m sick of trump ruining my relationships w people. Now since I’m not pro Bernie I’m some kind of privileged person.
No Bernie people I am not rich or privileged and I want a fair America- a just America - I just see reality. I hope I’m wrong about Bernie. I’m concerned.
2
so the problem with this is that so many people are hurting because a small class is grossly enriching themselves. those things aren't coincidental but cause and effect.
1
Warren's public relations persona is completely out of sync with her real life experiences and this article exposes the dichotomy without any bias.
8
The article is incisive, cutting into how oxymoron Warren's story is. Yes, Warren might have come from humble background, but her "convenient" (was it 1%?) tie to some Indan-American heritage allows her the kind of upward mobility that non-white minority women of color could never have dreamt of.
It is thus that she's never been able to expand much further from her base of white, college-educated voters (progressive as they might be). In large part, same is true with Sanders.
Warren is set to lose to Sanders on Super Tuesday in MA, which is most embarrassing and probably career-ending for her (and her myth). But it shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone. Afterall, she attracted less vote (in count) than Charlie Baker (the GOP governor) in the last election, which is one of the most telling sign of how weak she is as a candidate.
6
Career ending? So you’re a fortune teller? Do tell us more. And who will win the election?
3
I Couldn’t agree less. I love her. Do you know how many people I’ve met - black and white - that have told me they have Native American ancestry ? On the show finding your roots there are actually a small percentage of African Americans with Aboriginal American dna. People do not like to hear this truth.
People in Oklahoma live amongst one of the highest population of native Americans- sent there on the trail of tears. It is not uncommon in that area to have mythology about distant ancestors.
I do not think she is insincere, manipulative or devious. That is your and others projection.
It’s also really easy to do to women. Look at the double standards.
6
@Luze, Come to MA, and you can see it for yourself.
1
None of my friends and I are voting for her because she came across mean and nasty in the debates. Compared to the other candidates, she just had to “bring them down” instead of rising above. She isn’t inspiring.
14
A smart, educated and likable woman vs 3 guys older than 75, all carrying heavy duty baggage nobody wants to address, because it is "water under the bridge".
In the meantime, Warren has every hair, smile, frown, statement over analyzed.
And people want change...well change is here, but they refuse to recognize it because it comes as she.
Still Hillary won the popular vote despite a messy campaign. So, msyb3e tnere is hope that I will not have to choose between a mentally declining politician, an egomaniac billionaire and a barrel of empty promises.
26
Her speeches are incredibly inspiring. The one that finally gave me any hope at all for america was her New Year’s Eve speech. I don’t like the dudes.
4
Got good old American misogyny?
"White, college-educated voters swooned."
Um, I didn't and I fit this demographic. I appreciate the background information in this article. I was unaware, and it certainly makes me respect her more. I want a President who will focus on ALL Americans and not just "the marginalized". I also cringe at her pandering, such as saying she doesn't know what police brutality is like because she is white. While white women might experience far less of it than black men, white men experience far more of it than black women. It's pandering to constantly make claims on suffering that are dishonest in order to diminish the suffering of some to give more sympathy for the suffering of others. It's not a zero sum game.
3
Yes, as Warren says, an elected govt in a democracy should "help the less fortunate."
But let's ask---why does our wealthy democracy create so many 'less fortunate' in the 1st place? Seems our political culture is set up to help a small class of the MOST fortunate,
It gives huge tax breaks to corporations, lets US jobs be offshored and weakens regulations in the public interest. Mega donor wealth and power strengthen, while the financial security and political influence of the citizen majority weakens.
Our politics lets health care, medicines, and college tuition be the world's most costly and profitable. Unions and vocational training are reduced. We have a national shortage of affordable housing.
In dozens of capitalist nations HC is not a profit center, but a right of all for many decades. We in 2020 still fight over it as too radical left wing.
Many millions of Americans have no retirement savings or pension. That means their children have to help support them, who themselves may have huge college debt, plus high housing costs and medical costs, and can't save for their own retirement.
The international GINI Index of equality shows the US ranking behind many countries
All this isn't an accident- it's the result of public policy after years of mega donors making politicians vie for campaign funding. Thus they can set our political norms, and define what's labeled left vs center in politics.
Thus, voter support for Warren and Sanders is inevitable.
8
The positions of Elizabeth Warren are right in the middle of Biden and Bernie. That is where majority of the country and the democratic party’s is. Her campaign got off the message who she is and her accomplishments. Instead she went all over with her plans and no one remembers them and it muddles who she is and where she stands. In addition, men and women in rural areas still do not believe in women’s leadership. Right now, she is the best out there and did well in the last two debates. The game is not over.
15
I read a poll that says both men and women equally won’t vote for a woman. Women are sexist also.
Even if we don’t think we are - unconsciously most people are. We learn to be from day one.
1
I am sorry, but there is NO way that I would support her. She has changed so many stories about her life that I don’t believe a word she says. We already have a liar in the WH, we don’t need a second one.
6
Sure. Because Trump puts George Washington to shame with his honesty. Warren is running for president not Pope or Mother Theresa's successor or Virgin Mary reincarnation.
11
The fact that Trump lies does not make Warren honest.
2
That’s simply not true .
2
I like Warren, but to assume that people aren't voting for her because they're stupid as many of the top comments are doing vindicates the idea that her campaign has elitist tones. There are many reasons she's fallen behind, including her dubious versions of her own biography and willingness to break the progressive alliance she held with Sanders on national television with an unverified and hard to believe accusation of sexism. I think Warren would make a fine president, but chalking up her failures to the public's stupidity is not a great way to respond to the accusation that the campaign belongs to the PMC.
3
Even though this article ignores it, the Cherokee issue damaged her.
11
Persons who think that a government "plan for X" will solve social problems should reflect on Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, which had the opposite of the intended effect, creating a permanent underclass in the US.
A plan for beating Donald Trump would oblige the good professor to close up shop and support Joe Biden.
1
@Joel Sanders -
The War on Poverty created a permanent underclass? So before LBJ, there was lots and lots of social/income mobility and then the expanded social safety net created a disincentive to work? Seriously? Can you site some statistics for this outlandish claim? This fantasy of "In America, you get what you deserve and you deserve what you get" is so out of touch with reality. This kind of thinking is what drives supply side economic voodoo and lower tax rates for rich people, supercharging and cementing unequal income and wealth distribution, which is what actually creates a permanent underclass. Soon enough, 99% of the whole population will be a permanent underclass. This kind of casual, nonsensical read of economic and social history is one of the basic threats to the Republic. Please get it straight.
9
Suppose a white, male, 70 year old U.S. Senator,formerly a tenured professor at the Harvard Law School, declared his candidacy for the Democratic Party's nomination for the presidency of the US of A . Suppose that man had a modest but unexceptional upbringing, not unlike that of millions of Americans. At Harvard, suppose he falsely claimed to have Native American ancestors. Suppose this man had little or no record of leadership or management and that he had taken few risks and accomplished relatively little in his career.
Would he be the person to take on Donald Trump, defeat him, undo the damage caused by Trump and implement a bold agenda to transform American institutions?
If so, why? If not, why not?
5
@Bob - looks like you are claiming that Warren has "little or no record of leadership or management" and that she has "taken few risks and accomplished relatively little" in her career. Is that what you are claiming here? That couldn't be further from the truth given Warren's pioneering contributions to our understanding of financialization and the explosion of consumer debt and the rigged banking system and bankruptcy law and the establishment of the CFPB.
12
@Bob I, too, am from Ohio. Suppose this woman had written a great book in 2005 called "All Your Worth: The Ultimate Lifetime Money Plan." I read that book and have been free from financial struggles ever since. Suppose you had read "The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle Class Parents are (Still) Going Broke". Suppose this woman has fought against the craziness of Wall Street billionaires and banksters. (I'm thinking of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau).
Suppose this woman has sponsored many bills, including the "Equal Employment Act for All" and the "Trade Transparency Act".
11
@AHOBB - Have I missed something?
Tell me how "Warren's pioneering contributions to our understanding of financialization and the explosion of consumer debt and the rigged banking system and bankruptcy law and the establishment of the CFPB" qualify her "to take on Donald Trump, defeat him, undo the damage caused by Trump and implement a bold agenda to transform American institutions"?
Do you think that Elizabeth Warren is more qualified than Pete Buttigieg might have been "to take on Donald Trump, defeat him, undo the damage caused by Trump and implement a bold agenda to transform American institutions?"
This seems to happen all the time in the USA ... highly qualified women who are willing to listen and evolve to get things done get sidelined for a high-profile job for some chest-thumping male, who's charming bravado on a single issue wowed everyone. A year later, the organization collapses, because the policies implemented had no substance, no back-up plan, no provisions for compromise. There is a very smart, clear-headed, empathetic woman running for President. What is holding us back? #VoteWarren
23
The writer's assessment that she should have blanketed the airways with her personal story is very true. Perhaps she or her advisors are not brilliant in the data driven marketing department.
Personally, I am not interested in her history, I am interested in what she is now. In my assessment, Warren is a brilliant, empathetic and thoughtful candidate who passionately wants to improve conditions for everyone in this country, particularly for folks that are not educated or rich.
It would be fabulous to watch her in a debate wipe the floor with Trump who has regressed to speaking like a 10 year old. But then again, I'm a well educated, white woman who gets her news from more than the TV. I am tired of dumb, thoughtless, selfish sound bites from Trump. A smart, articulate female leader with a plan...yes, please!!!!!
Senator Frank's assessment however bears repeating, “It’s an extra challenge to be a very obviously well-educated, articulate female.”
17
In addition to her outstanding qualifications, Warren is the only one among the front-runners who can reasonably expect to run for a second term. Are we really going to limit ourselves to choosing among a set of men so old they will be serious health concerns and almost certainly not viable second term candidates?
22
It’s unbelievable it’s come to this. I’m getting ready to leave America . What would be really revolutionary would be an amazing female president.
3
Today I voted for Elizabeth Warren. Her background is similar to mine. When my father's business failed, we lost our home. The family had not recovered financially by the time I went to college, so I worked my way through, thanks to low tuition -- $50 a semester -- at the University of Texas. (Yes, this was long ago.) Unsurprisingly, Senator Warren's by-the-bootstraps story struck a chord with me, but it was her brilliance and energy that made me a supporter. No one is better qualified to be President.
29
I think Warren is a talented politician who can easily pivot between a folksy persona and egghead college professor. The problem is that she achieved early front runner status which is very hard to maintain over the long term.
6
I feel like if this were a ranked voting Elizabeth Warren would be getting everyone’s second vote and walking away with this primary. Or maybe I am just trying to rationalize how Warren could be at this point and on the verge of elimination. Now more than ever I am convinced this method of electing a president is in high need of reform.
16
The sad part is she would be the one to do it. She would also be the one to change many things for the better. Campaign finance reform, the horrible filibuster, and corruption- among so many of her excellent plans. People dismiss her often- the Bernie folks have their reasons and the right has theirs. She just can’t be perfect enough for everyone. Women are put under extra scrutiny.
5
I feel like if this were a ranked voting Elizabeth Warren would be getting everyone’s second vote and walking away with this primary. Or maybe I am just trying to rationalize how Warren could be at this point and on the verge of elimination. Now more than ever I am convinced this method of electing a president is in high need of reform.
13
@T Montoya
I believe that is true. I went to five-thirty-eight a few days ago and spent a nerdy hour poring over all the polls. She is the second choice leader by far.
I think we get manipulated into first choices by all the fear and hubbub in the current election, and the second choice often comes from the heart.
With pride and hope I cast my California absentee ballot for Elizabeth Warren.
19
@T Montoya
Ranked-choice voting only counts second choices of the least-popular first-preference ballots, as those candidates are eliminated. To capture a broad view of a unity or compromise candidate we would need something like score voting, which tallies every voter's judgement of every candidate, all at once.
4
I went back to MA from NYC last week just to vote for Liz.
2
she has the most substantive plans for helping working people. amazing they wouldn't support her. oh well, this seems to be the history of the american electorate for the last many years in presidential elections. we vote for the flashy object. not the person who can really help us. in the end, we get what we deserve.
17
What an annoying and patronizing tone! We (EW's supporters) "swooned"?
No, no swooning, Mr. Goldmacher. We are not teenagers at a rock concert; we are smart, college educated voters, remember? And who says we are privileged, which statistics or polls? I am working class and so are most of my friends who favor Warren, even if we have Master's or PhD degrees. Has anyone caught up with the fact a college degree does not ensure social climbing or financial freedom?
I agree Warren isn't perfect when it comes to stage presence: her delivery, choice of words and slogans could be improved, and she comes across as jittery when she gets worked up---but her obvious virtues and track record far exceed her imperfections. She did not just vote for the right issues; she came up with novel solutions to the abuses of financial institutions.
I have heard and spoken with wonks--she is not a wonk. She is pragmatic and competent.
Too bad not many journalists are pointing out her strengths; and not enough voters recognize her value.
34
@Margherita P. Thank you!
1
@J Second it! This election is heart-breaking because she is just so good a potential president. I have never gotten to vote for someone I respect so much and would love to see elected in my whole democratic-voting life; and I have voted in every presidential election since Mondale ran in 1984.
1
I think she originally came off as “Bernie lite” especially with the force in which she pushed Medicare for all. Then she pivoted away from that position. Then, I think she had to prove that she was “tough” and came up with almost demonic attacks against the others in the race but especially the males. The performance in the last debate was especially harsh.
3
Seriously? Demonish? Even trump doesn’t get called that. Unbelievable how people talk about women.
She didn’t attack the candidates, she pointed out their hypocrisies.
3
Warren's demise came from the simple fact that she's not a leader. A leader is usually not the smartest person, nor the one with the most plans. A leader is not an Ideas Person, which is what Warren is. A leader is someone who projects confidence and inspires people. Warren never pulled that off. HRC got the first part right, but not the second.
Warren projected a certain neediness with both her debate performances - with the jumping up and down with her hand in the air to be called on - and her plans for anything and everything. She came off as the teacher's pet. The teacher's pet is not a leader, it's a person who's very, very concerned about how they'll be graded. Big difference.
Also - and this goes for almost all female candidates - enough with the colorful sweaters and blazers already. If you want to be President then you need to look the part. That means sombre, serious blacks, blues and grays. Professional clothing for serious professional people.
7
@O My In other words, look like a man.
13
Wow. Thanks for the wardrobe advice . Be sure to consider it next time.
That Bernie screaming with his hair messed up and disheveled look? Is that good?
Black and brown? Even Sarah plain wore bright red. It’s a tradition if you look at how female politicians dress and what is “ acceptable”.
I see so much subtle sexism in these comments. No wonder the smartest person is not winning. Americans are superficial.
4
@E Brown
No in other words...looks like a world leader. Not a soccer Mom. This is a serious job. Men wear suits or at least a dress shirt at almost every campaign stop and for any speech. Look at this outfit in the photo here. She looks like's introducing the new iPhone but caught a chill and put on a casual sweater. It's not a serious look. And no...it's not fair. Add that to the list of the other millions of things that are unfair about the real world.
@Luze
No Bernie is a mess and it's not good at all.
1
Sure... what’s more important:
-Your character, experience, & what you intend to do as President, OR
-Where you were born?
But maybe she’s being naive in thinking anyone can get elected based on policy.
4
Discussing her upbringing and early years and yet somehow leaving out that she pretended to be a Native American to get ahead in school and in her career.
Just because other Democrats don’t want to mention it, that doesn’t mean she won’t be relentlessly thrashed by Trump for that disgraceful behavior.
9
@Ken As many do, she grew up believing what her family told her. Before there was 23andme, there was family lore about background. So she was only sharing what she believed. And apparently it is quite common in Oklahoma for white families to believe they have some Native American ancestry. In addition, the Boston Globe did an exhaustive study a while back and found that her mistaken belief that she had more than a tiny amount of Native American ancestry did NOTHING to help her rise:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/09/01/did-claiming-native-american-heritage-actually-help-elizabeth-warren-get-ahead-but-complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html
In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren’s professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman.
3
So, if we had better schools, and taught people that there is value in intellect, would that help?
Or do we really need to smash the patriarchy to elect a woman president? Sigh.
8
OK, so her roots motivate her policies -- but is she proud or ashamed of them? Why did she choose NOT to use them?
I guess because for her content matters not up coming.
2
Readers: if you expect to jump the female or gay or racial barrier at the same time you seek to depose Trump, you're doomed to fail. The election of Trump was at the hands of single issue voters. Not good, but they do have the right to vote.
Let's depose Trump and regain the ability to determine the future. That's the priority.
2
I admit Warren did beat up on Bloomberg. But...
A woman can’t beat up on a man.
A woman can’t beat up on a woman.
A man can’t beat up on a woman.
But a man can beat up on another man.
Funny how that works.
3
But why choose to attack Bloomberg rather than Sanders, who is her real competitor? Choosing the correct opponent is key.
2
Bc she is working for women’s rights and minority rights and he is very flawed there.
2
Richard Hofstadter's "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" was published in 1963, and not much has changed since then. As a kid I remember baseball announcers having to self-mockingly criticize themselves if they used a word with many syllables.
For a woman, there is an extra burden. Men without much education, leading to feelings of insecurity, need to at least feel they are smarter than women (same as whites vs blacks) as they put down the so-called coastal elites (i.e., people who know things). Women throughout history have sadly learned to play down their intelligence to placate their insecure men.
It is a tragedy that the Elizabeth Warrens of this world are looked down on while we elect a snarling, ignorant, psychopathic man who can't put a sentence together, and who exalts ignorance to a place of honor.
26
This morning I woke up to a cascade of male voices slamming Elizabeth Warren, calling for her to step down and support Bernie. I refreshed the thread and noted that EVERY single writer was a man! Then I switched to this, also written by a man. It is time, no, make that Beyond time, for men to step back and let a woman get us out of this mess! Decades of white men have failed! Now it’s down to a familiar few. And they are both so old as to border on frail. I am just sick of this predictable mess. Joe Biden is clumsy. Donald Trump is a narcissist with dementia. Bernie only has one speed and one slogan. Plus he’s a health risk due to his heart attack. There were only two people who know the truth about whether Bernie said a woman could not win the presidency. Why do Americans Always side with the man? (And BTW, we are about to prove him right! Again! )
16
@Ggram, I am a woman and I absolutely do not support Warren. For many reason. Sometimes it’s not about gender.
3
I agree. I can’t go on social media and post things about her and how much I like her without someone telling me Bernie is better and she should drop out’ she is stealing votes from Bernie, she is just in it for her ego one guy said. Really the gall! But also women. I’ve had debates about women being more nurturing and relatable. I have researched and posted in response studies with statistics on the difference in male and females on mirroring and empathy. You can see how Warren talks to people that she meets people where they are . Bernie is about Bernie. What really showed me what Bernie is made of is Trevor Noah’s ‘getting to know Bernie Sanders’ and Bernie had his tv station and talked to kids - he was horrible and could not listen and even called one kid dumb. I was horrified. How could I vote for this guy in 2016?
So yeah, the Trump folks are often Bullies and so are the Sanders clan. It’s pretty terrible to see how Warren has been treated by other supposed progressives. We need Warren, I fear for our country without her leading us, everything is a complete mess, she can clean it up.
1
she got my vote
19
Warren would make a fine President, as would ANY of the other candidates, including the ones who have dropped out.
But, unlike Republicans who fall in line, Democrats want to fall in love with their candidate.
Democrats MUST keep their eyes on the prize of removing the Con Man Grifter from the White House— and retaking the Senate.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good: Choosing between Warren, Biden, and Bloomberg, is like choosing between chocolate vanilla and strawberry ice cream, when the alternative flavor is cyanide.
13
Surely, Warren or her advisers should have seen that her approach had appeal only to a narrow segment of Democratic voters. To me the question is why she didn't pivot in a direction that might have garnered wider support?
The answer suggest that she didn't or couldn't because it was "not in the plan." Too many plans can result in too little flexibility. Unfortunately, a Warren presidency would likely suffer from too many plans and too little adaptability. We are fortunate that her limitations came out during the nominating process.
1
Elizabeth Warren, sadly, proves the point that getting elected isn't about being the best person for the job, the most capable government official, or having the best ideas. It's about being the best campaigner.
4
We can't support her because of her genius work creating Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Saving American families billions. For her decades mentoring progressive law students on the need to master all things commercial and financial to create a new social justice order? Better she'd been Bernie. Long on wind, short on substance?
13
Elizabeth Warren did not catch fire with the many and remained static simply because Beto O'Rourkes observation was so on point ; she lost me when she passed on attacks on Bernie and there was ammunition there . She's brilliant , articulate and knows what she's talking about (as compared to other politicians ) her I have a plan became tiresome and her pass on Bernie became her Waterloo .
3
Yes and look how Bernie treated her - and her supporters . If it’s between Biden and Bernie I’m voting for Biden. I am tired of these bullies.
And after the NH debate, Warren was interviewed by five moderators and went on and on, demonizing "the rich". Not ONE person there said a word, no one asked her how long she has been a millionaire... 30 years, maybe? Since her Republican years? No one asked her this because they are ALL rich! The only candidate there who has spent most of their life NOT as a millionaire is Bernie. Buttigieg doesn't really count because he's only 38 and likely has many upper class years ahead of him. When Bernie was 38 he was surely of lower means than Buttigieg. (Bernie's new wealth, small compared to the others, has come from recent book sales - and inheritance of his mother-in laws house, I understand)
1
He has more than one house. Yes in his 20s he lived in a place w an extension cord getting electric from someone else. There he wrote many words, they are kept in the archives. They will be used if he is nominated and we will wish we nominated Warren.
And let's not overlook that during the two most-recent debates, when Warren had her best opportunity to sell herself and her distinguish her ideas from Sanders with Democratic primary voters, she instead chose to focus again and again on her "don't vote for billionaire misogynist Michael Bloomberg" messaging.
4
I support Elizabeth Warren. If she drops out, I will vote for Bernie. The DNC will not tell me who to vote for. I don’t like Joe Biden. There is a basic failure on the part of all of the political analysts. They keep talking about racism and sexism but there is an obvious fail. The people in the Midwest don’t like people from the coastal areas. They are considered elitist. I am originally from Minnesota, went to school there, lived in New York for 30 years, moved back and now I am called an elitist. I’m talking about professional people that think this way. Maybe someone should be studying that. Elizabeth Warren has an amazing story regarding where she rose above her life history but the people of flyover country see her as a coastal elite. Maybe it’s about that old Midwestern thinking that you just aren’t supposed to rise above your place.
10
@Greta yes, especially if you are a woman!
3
Ms Warren advocated many things that resonated with me, but her anger was a chief concern. It reminded me of what I had learned in a graduate course on counseling: angry people have a distorted view of reality.
Roy Williams (PhD)
6
She is not truly angry. I think she didn’t know how to “be” as a woman and not appear weak- instead of fighting with her intellect and working on her speech cadence. One thing I can say about Buttigieg is that he has a very calming manner of speaking .
Elizabeth Warren started this race with every advantage. For all the complaints about sexism, at the starting point Ms. Warren was actually ahead of everyone except Biden. Bernie has a cultish following, but the majority of Bernie voters know he is 78, is not a telegenic personality, and most "moderate" and "independent" voters are looking for a President from "Central Casting" and are indifferent to policy matters. As a Bernie supporter myself, I was rooting for Ms. Warren - whom I respected for her research on the issues, her work with the CFPB and her courageous run for the Senate. She was the fighter we were looking for.
Until she decided she wasn't - her "plan for that" was Hillary-redux, nobody goes to your website and reads your plans. The media asks for specifics, but they are incapable of distinguishing between premiums and taxes as both being expenses, so most of them have no way of verifying those plans. Then she messed up her Medicare for All cred by predicting the unpredictable and then backing away from it. Lost M4A supporters and moderates in one day.
Then she resorted to attacking Pete's Wine cave, Bernie's alleged sexism towards her, etc etc... and went from the leading candidate to a weakened candidate she has become. Bloomberg has been taken down by her, too bad she won't be there to do that to Trump.
Bernie now is the only Progressive hope, so sad. You think "He's a Socialist" will rankle in fall, think about an "Indict Hunter Biden" campaign. Ughh!
2
She didn’t call Bernie a sexist, that is Bernie campaign and supporter propaganda. Hey the snake thing worked! I will vote Biden bc of that.
Interesting article. But, educated does not equal "upscale" and what the heck is "elite" really? I have ten years of graduate education, live in senior housing, and can barely make the rent. College is more than job training and not all of us come out wealthier. Meanwhile, Warren is my choice.
9
Downplaying a hardscrabble youth and early adulthood, as well as the struggle to become professionally and intellectually accomplished is a working class trait, and one few other candidates exhibit. To speak of the difficulties she faced would be to complain, and to speak of her incredible work ethic and thirst for knowledge would be to brag. I'm disappointed that her brilliance is seen as her downfall - she is competent, compassionate, smart, and sincere.
11
I voted for Warren. I feel a sense of regret, but not for my vote. She by far would have made the best President. I regret that she didn't have a better strategy which enabled her to connect with more Americans beyond her rallies, which were highly personal, but limited. Her strength as a relative newcomer to politics might have been her weakness. Strategically too, I believe a couple of her policies were too far left; Medicare for All and going after Big Tech. You can't agree with every policy, and, I believe she would have compromised to get things done, but unfortunately, those two policies alienated key constituencies. I'm holding out hope that she has the opportunity to serve our country in a very prominent fashion. As an alternative, I'd like to see her lead the Senate!
21
My single disagreement with this comment is that by Warren going after big tech she has brought out into the open what most of us feel in our hearts, big tech (possibly by its nature with the importance it places on centralizing one database and having access to it) is clearly in violation of the antitrust laws and must be broken up to save both our privacy and our cherished electoral process.
As Warren has said, her favorite President was Teddy Roosevelt, the trust buster.
8
@Wsheridan I don't disagree with your opinion and actually share the concern. I just think it's something best addressed once in office vs. alienating a key voting block. Timing.
2
It sure took a while to get to the money graph:
Running to be the first female president is another complicating factor. Allies and rivals alike acknowledged her gender has most likely played a role in how she was perceived.
'Ya think?
11
A lot of words wasted on the simple fact that if Elizabeth Warren were a man, she would 50 points ahead.
43
@Lauren
Warren always seems to turn debate discussions to her gender. If this was so damaging to her why would she do this? I think it's been an ASSET to her in this this race. Maybe among non-democrats, in the general election, it would be a liability.... but in this nomination race, I don't see the evidence.
3
While this is a touching obituary for your preferred candidate, don’t fool yourself or the reader that the reason she lost was something other than the truth - that her “plans” were not appealing to people who understand math or reason. However she chose to write her own biography, the present reality is what failed her.
9
You could just scream “SOCIALISM.” It would save on the word count.
Thanks, Kevin
3
@ Kevin
Then how is Sanders going to pay for his platform?
3
Stop framing the dna story falsely - she didn’t take the test to prove her lineage, she took it to blunt, no matter the results, the attacks from trump who was threatening to “throw” dna tests at her on debate stage. It was the best of bad choices to put it behind her after the gop weaponized her tales of family lore using in quite a bigoted way her looks, place of residence, income to say ‘of course she’s lying’. In fact, in OK all those things would not preclude native ancestors nor did she claim tribal membership which would have been wrong. She did not use it to gain any advantage either despite the lies told- she checked Caucasian on official applications. Her only other choices were to completely disavow it giving credence to the liar narrative which she’s not any more than someone who talks about their Irish roots solely from family stories or to go on ignoring, leaving it as a weapon in trumps hands. By doing the dna herself she got it out in the open, a lot of people got educated re dna although there’s still idiots who think the average American has more based on faulty understanding of a study, and trump will just look foolish trying a stunt.
13
That is not true. This is an Internet lie that keeps getting repeated. She also has many plans to help Native Americans and met with them to find out the most crucial issues to address. She also is the only one with a plan for black farmers —- and she is the only one with a plan for migrant farm workers to have more rights and better pay.
The woman is amazing. This character bashing and framing her as a “liar” is so predictable.
1
Actually, her "I-have-a-plan-for-that" branding was eclipsed by her "I-have-a-complaint-for-that" personality. Watching her decimate Mike Bloomberg and castigate Bernie Sanders on a live mike told you everything you needed to know about Warren. She was going to step on as many toes, faces, and fingers as necessary to achieve her political ambitions. And if that meant clearing a path for 4 more years of The Donald, then so be it. Egregious.
9
@Jeff M
We need to record these sorts of comments in a compendium for our great-great-granddaughters of what sexism sounded like. Then we need to show them a video of calm, measured, and brilliant Elizabeth Warren.
8
Unless I missed some critical event, there seems to be a heavy media bias against Warren. It seemed like media was willing to entertain her popularity at the beginning, as something new and progressive, and far from the critical time of actual voting, but then teamed up to pothole her.
Whatever she's done "wrong" seems no worse, and in some cases, a lot less egregious than the male candidates.
24
I'm a a sixty six year old white man and I'm voting for Ms. Warren today. She is the first, the first, presidential candidate that I have really admired in my entire adult life. As a boy I watched my single mother cry over the checkbook. I got my first real job (one you needed to get a social security card for, not just washing windows or whatever) when I was 12. I attended an Ivy and eventually did pretty well as an adult, to a large degree because I was simply lucky. It's easy for me to recognize Elizabeth Warren as the most authentic working American to run for President in a long, long, time. And let me repeat, I am a man. Why every single woman in this country isn't voting for her I am at a complete loss to explain.
59
Thank you. She is the only one that gives me hope in America.
2
I was a 7th-grade girl in math class. I raised my hand every time the teacher asked us a question; I had the answer. Some boys behind me made quiet comments. The effect was that I stopped raising my hand so often. I regret that. How many smart girls have been cowed into silence? I am tired of it.
23
I’m a subscriber and regular reader but I must have missed all the NYT coverage of Warren before this because this is the first positive article I can remember reading about her here and in fact it’s mostly a criticism of the way her campaign has been run.
Sanders was born in a blue collar family but that rarely comes up because his bio can be reduced to 2 things: blue collar family and professional politician. He has literally done nothing else as an adult, so maybe he’s not so anxious to emphasize his bio? Whereas Warren has had a rich and complicated history chock full of experience that allows her to relate to people like me - raised in a pink collar family from blue collar roots who went on to a higher education and professional career.
Funny how with her short time in politics one can point to her having conceived and and seen creation of an entire Federal Bureau to protect the average American (the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau). Whereas, remind me, what has Sanders done again?
But let’s pile on Warren for her life being too complicated to fit in a 30 second advertisement and for her not being content to make empty pie in the sky promises like Sanders and the current President.
Is it possible that differences in media coverage of someone who makes great spectacle versus someone who just makes sense has something to do with this? As an illustrative example we don’t have to look farther than 2016.
32
When Warren established the Consumer Financial Protection Board, one of the many "innovations" she encouraged was to make sure that the tiny-print booklet, produced on nearly transparent paper included with a new credit card be re-designed so that the print was readable and the paper be opaque. She also required that consumers see, on their monthly bills, how long their debt would take to pay off if the consumer only paid the minimum amount each month. These may seem like inconsequential details to point out, but it was that kind of thoughtfulness for the average person that put Elizabeth Warren on my radar. That kind of thinking made her too radical to be considered for the post of director. The Trump administration, under Mulvaney's leadership of the department, unsurprisingly, has gutted the department's consumer protections. Trump and his minions are mean, plain and simple, only interested in helping the already rich and powerful. Those of us in our sixties and beyond, remember when government was seen as an ally. Looking back, we are beginning to see that that era of civil rights, helping the little guy, bringing the powerful under control, was an aberration. Warren may be wonky, as some complain, but she still believes in the nobility of government helping people who are no match for powerful corporations only interested in profit. Her gender is her only obstacle. Her humility, intelligence and compassion would make her an excellent president.
43
@SNA
Yes, yes, yes, and, for crying out loud, what is wrong with 'wonky?'
It sounds like the insults whispered by the loutish Kavanaugh-type boys in the back of the classroom when a smart girl knows all the answers to the math problems.
(Credit goes to another commenter for giving this math problem example from her life experience).
9
"But her branding as the candidate with “a plan for that” eclipsed her own up-from-the-bootstraps biography"
I first heard Elizabeth Warren talk about the need for financial industry reform sometime about 2000 when Terry Gross interviewed her. She had a plan for necessary regulation.
A few years and one despicable recession later, she ran for the Senate, won, wrote legislation to control the financial industry regulation and got it passed.
It took her less than 1 term to put her plan in action. It helped so many people stand up to banks during foreclosures and excess fee collections. So, if the rhetoric about "she has a plan," makes her seem like she's less of a viable candidate, look again at how much the financial industry opposes her candidacy now because of her prior effectiveness on behalf of the little guy and gal. For her, a plan is only a rational first step.
For voters who want effective change after this election, she's got the best track record of delivering. The odds don't favor her winning the nomination for president but I hope she gets the second place on the ticket if not the first.
49
I hope she gets the second place on the ticket if not the first.
Me, too, Roy.
Candidates should not have plans. Parties should have plans. Relying on somebody to lead the party to the light is the great mistake of our time. It just leaves the field to the populists. Like today.
2
As much as I like her, I am nonetheless saddened by the fact that she didn't resign after SC voting and thus made it more likely that Sanders won't get the nomination. So much for progressives.
1
I’m still voting for Elizabeth Warren. I still believe she’s more presidential than Sanders, Biden and Bloomberg.
65
The author forgets the Cherokee element in this description, the one Trump likes most.
And variety of flip flops during this circus which passes as 'primaries'.
To all those so affectionate about Warren, she'll remain the senator for as long as she wants, aged 80, perhaps 90; you will still be able to admire her, less than now though.
But, she is not going to be the next president ... nor any one of her colleagues ...
3
She became at attack dog against Bloomberg. She might have managed to get rid of him, but lost precious stage time selling her own message. A more nuanced, measured approach would also have helped (see Mayor Pete or Amy delivery).
Talented, smart, potentially a great president. Bad delivery.
For better or worse, candidates need to understand something simple - people have to be likable. (Trump excepted, it seems.)
4
@Everyman2000 .........and for a woman to be considered “likable” by a man, she ought to know her place, right, “Everyman”!
2
I think you meant to say “women need to be likable”
5
August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment guarantees all American women the right to vote. It took that long! Women have been the most oppressed minority in history. Today, In many countries they still are. And I'm voting for Warren. Or writing her in. Compared to whom we have now she is Mother Theresa and FDR combined. It's time we have a woman in the WH. Long over due.
25
Warren’s roots shout out loud and clear in her tough unabashed fight for consumer rights.
During the Great Recession, when everyone else was playing political football, Warren rolled up her sleeves. She studied how banks were actually treating consumers, and she almost singlehandedly caused the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau to become a reality.
Few realize how much the CFPB has protected consumers. Take a look at your mortgage statement. It now contains detailed understandable information about your mortgage. That is the CFPB.
Or notice how you are notified when your servicer changes. That’s the CFPB.
Or hear how Wells Fargo is being penalized billions of dollars for the fraudulent accounts it set up in one of its sales schemes. That is the CFPB.
Finally, notice how Trump has been unable to cripple the independence of the CFPB even though he has crippled most other progressive agencies. That’s Warren fighting to have the CFPB insulated from direct control by any one party or one public official.
37
@Wsheridan - mike mulvaney couldn't destroy it.
1
It is painful to read that being well educated, articulate, and a woman is a challenge to be overcome and not a strength to be celebrated. No wonder Trump has triumphed and no wonder that the top Democratic vote getter is Sanders. Both have large followings of disaffected men willing to dump venom on women and the educated. We live in a world made for the so-called incells and Senator Warren’s candidacy is to be sacrificed to it.
27
Its a pity Senator Amy has pulled out. She is just as smart as Warren but definitely less wonkish than Warren and can connect with more working women. Maybe Betsy AKA Lizzie thought she could pull a fast one on women by pretending to be noble and honest when instead, was found to have cheated on her application forms to get into the college of her choice. The past always comes back to haunt you.
3
She was not found to have cheated on her college application, in fact it turns out she checked white/Caucasian on all official applications as anyone would do rather than lean on long ago family lore no matter how interesting.
3
@Laurel McGuire
It looked to me like she was claiming Cherokee because she knew that would give her a leg up.
That's how it looked to a lot of people.
I've heard of up by the bootstraps, but never "up from the bootstraps".
3
As best I can tell. Elizabeth Warren is the smartest person out there. This is a great thing if you are also honest. I don't believe Warren is - and this is troubling to me. (I'm having a hard time explaining myself here, because my arguments are not being posted.) I'll try them one at a time:
First, her statement made at the NH debate that she's been a "teacher" her whole life went unchallenged then - and even now. Does anyone really consider Harvard (or Penn) Law School a "school" and its professors "teachers"? Her only stint as a teacher, as I understand it, was a very brief and temporary, part-time job (her first, I think) teaching special-ed, without a certificate (using her audiology degree). This was nearly 50 YEARS AGO. She earns about 10 times what the public school teacher that she pretends to have been all her life earns. It's just not right... sort of insulting to REAL teachers. She wants to have their street cred, but not their salaries. I think she assumes everyone has a resume and pads it like this. It's no wonder she can't get the vote of the working class.
1
@carl bumba i ask you to see the other side of that narrative. If she were a teacher as you define it, she would never have amassed the experience to even consider running for the presidency. i think a counterargument would be that she does not boast about her time as a law professor and use that to further her candidacy. she lets her own intelligence speak for itself. women in the race go through unreasonable barriers to even be considered and many would be quick to maximize their credentials. joe biden has done egregious things in his candidacy, and no one picks him apart. here, the smallest "flaw" decides everything.
2
Yes, lecturers are teachers - why on earth would you think otherwise?
1
@Lauren
Thank you. My understanding is that in Massachusetts, her probably well
deserved credentials as an Harvard academic are actually a liability among working class (her supposed constituency as a democrat) whose kids could never attend Harvard - and so she avoids this. (But they seem to have her figured out.) Her abilities were NEVER an issue for me, on the contrary. Her opportunism and honesty is the problem though. (If she we dumber it would actually be LESS of a concern to me.) I trust Bernie, though he's probably not as sharp as her, and Tulsi, I think Yang, maybe Klobuchar... but Buttigieg and Warren strike me as snake oil salespersons. (Biden is getting too geriatric to say one way or the other.)
1
I really like Elizabeth Warren and greatly admire her grasp of the major issues and her ability to formulate cogent plans to deal with all of those. My political observation is that the way in which she offers again and again the comment, 'I have a plan for that' is off putting for a high enough percentage of the population who don't want to be schooled on every issue, but prefer to have ideas put forward that they can evaluate. Treating voters of all genders as equals rather than people who need to be schooled is a more effective approach. It's all in the delivery.
@Dennis W Maybe people need to have more humility? Most of us, myself included, do indeed need to be schooled on a number of issues. Personally I think she's the best candidate; tangible plans, not ideas that aren't even expressed on paper like candidate Sanders.
8
@Federico Good Point....thanks
1
Unfortunately Warren's relentless attacks on Bloomberg showed a side of Warren than many people didn't like. It was like kicking somebody who's already down. If she had gone after Sanders instead of Bloomberg, I'd still be one of her supporters.
7
Articulating truthfully the political weaknesses of one of the richest men in the world is “kicking the vulnerable when they are down”?
Bloomberg, like anyone else on that podium, should be strong enough to take truthful political criticism. None of them are too “vulnerable” to endure political criticism.
15
@Jack Edwards
Really, now.
Bloomberg bought his way onto that podium. She has spent her life fighting for the little guy against the oligarchs. I appreciated Elizabeth Warren tremendously at that moment and the donations that flooded her campaign the morning after show that I was not alone.
Bloomberg has no right to be in this race. It is graft and corruption, basically, and he is siphoning off moderate votes that might have gone to her, besides.
6
Strength and goodness come from hard work and perseverance, not from greed and sloth demanding others prop you up. A safety net is one thing, giving everyone free stuff will destroy a culture long in decline due to self-loathing of western values.
3
Her story is no different from millions of Americans except those Americans felt no need to embellish their racial heritage in order to get ahead. She's not failing for being a woman but for being another Democratic candidate that the people don't trust due to lack of character and past performance.
9
@Bayricker :
She is not perfect. She is just a human being. Not like the Right Wing GODS, like Trump and Pence.
5
There's a strong anti-intellectual strain in this country as well as a deep seated distrust of women in power. Put them both together and you cancel out Elizabeth Warren's hopes for President. It's a shame .
Maybe if Sanders gets in and the people get free college, in a few generations people will be smart enough to vote for someone like Warren. Meanwhile we will endure.
11
To me. she comes off as someone who already knows the answers, so she doesn't need to hear anyone else's ideas. Barack Obama and Bill Clinton were successful because they gave you the impression they were listening to you. Warren just talks to us.
7
I want someone smarter than me leading the country. Do Americans have such poor self esteem that they are intimidated by anyone who has more education or expertise? As for the first name stuff, I think it is ridiculous. Do you want an “amateur” surgeon without a medical degree to operate on you? Why would we denigrate education?
15
Really? Here is the thing: Elizabeth is a woman, a brilliant, powerful, thoughtful and principled woman. Sexism, not messsaging, is the problem.
43
She’s the Democrats’ Chris Christie. She tears apart other candidates during the debates. You can call that winning, but she comes across as just an ugly person inside. We already have that with Trump. Voters could care less about reams of policy statements and plans, most voters just want the executive summary or bullet points. Obama, Bill Clinton, and even George W. Bush knew how to turn on the charm, while Betsy from Oklahoma displays bile most of the time. Just another unlikable politician.
1
It didn’t “trickle down” mostly because the media was dreadful at reporting it, and on the other hand happy enough to use “Harvard Professor” language which generally means, of course “snobby out of touch know it all” in American English. Also, the media made absolutely sure that her harmless, and friendly, and very common family story about native American connections was subjected to an outrageous level of almost forensic scrutiny.
13
In the old country the men would sit under the shade tree,
drinking beer, while the women took care of everything.
10
When anyone from a Red State who grows up poor and makes good, they are to be avoided like the coronavirus.
Of course, unless they are white men.
10
"Bet on Betsy!" would make a great slogan. How fast can the buttons and bumper stickers get printed?
7
Since when is a Senate seat a sinecure? I was under the impression that between committee work, legislation and dealing with constituents, they all worked pretty hard, even the ones I don’t like. Have I been laboring under a misconception?
5
A lot of anecdotal opinion in this article. So here is mine. I believe that Democrats are wrestling with two big issues - electability vs. Trump and progressive vs more moderate policy. I for example am an over 40 yr democrat and fall into the more moderate camp. My first choice, as of last week, was Sen Klobuchar because her stance on the issues is closest to mine and I thought she easily passed the electability test. I also considered that she would be an effective president that could help bring the country back together. Warren was down the list. Why? Because I am in considerably less in agreement with her policy plans and her vision of the role of federal govt is much more expansive than mine. Further, I fear her positions are unappealing to many independents and moderate Republicans — hence an electability worry. (Ditto for Sen Sanders, but given his strong base, he may be be higher on the electability scale). Gender and/or “wonkiness” is not a factor for me and I would suggest such is the case for most Dem primary voters. BTW, the Times concluding that “college educated” voters “swoon” over Warren’s policy detail while others somehow find such a negative is absolute stereotyping and is demeaning to the electorate.
7
To the extent that this acct is true, it shows the dire state of democracy. And this is a populace with a universal, free educational system and easy access to information.
Faced with any serious choice of agents in one's life--say, roofers, mechanics, doctors--you don't need higher education to know that you should find out what candidates plan to do and also how they plan to do it.
Although the enteric nervous system is apparently quite elaborate, it's bad policy to vote with one's gut.
9
I don't support any woman for U.S. President because of her gender. I did support Warren (and recently with small donations) ever since her cover story in the NYT Magazine, I believe a couple of years ago. Lately I have found her to be grating: She has not stuck to her plans but prefers to draw attention to her challengers with repetitive digs or she refers to things that happened to her a lifetime ago. (I, too, was fired when I was pregnant with my first (of four) children. I don't still wallow in it 50 years later.) I also am annoyed when she seems to finds it necessary to pander, switching from her competent professional voice to what I assume is a local Oklahoma speaking style, just like Hillary did on occasion with Arkansasese. Such a loss.
9
Actually, its not so much the "woman" issue of being qualified or being able to be president; its a given. The issue with Warren is that all her ideas came from Sanders campaign against Clinton and she chose to back Clinton instead of Sanders in 2016. She now has the same choice. Amy's and Pete's choice was done on what they were offered if Joe Biden wins the election. Warren needs to make the choice...is this election really about the People's Choice or the Blue Mad Dog Party who resembles the Republican Party in the same donors, the same bankers and wall street cronies, the same billionaires who want to control the People for their own profits. We need Democracy, not the same old, we can buy the election. Maybe this time she will make the right choice. Hopefully she will be able to win back her own seat in the Senate...that is where the losses will come from those who weren't watching the house while the weasels are out buying up votes, closing polling booths, devastating government institutions and preparing for Biden win to initiate an investigation by Barr into his son with Ukraine to make front pages.
Its the same play that won Trump his election and Warren needs to make the choice that throws the weasels out of the White House.
1
Americans.
Sen Warren does not dress poor, she does not talk poor, so she is not to be trusted. Trump breaks the law in front of everyone and has no regard for the Constitution, so he is "authentic" and desirable.
That is the way Americans roll.
13
Scores of Elizabeth Warren supporters, myself included, have an Oklahoma origin story to tell. We can also tell you about the labeling, accusations, and blame hurled at us when we leave 'home' permanently to seek professional and personal opportunity in some geographical location far from the rural landscapes of our childhoods.
Women who leave home permanently are suspect and often called deserters. 'You're not like we are anymore.' 'You think you're better than we are.' 'You're an East Coast Leftist Liberal now.' 'You don't understand us.' 'You can't relate to us.' 'You've forgotten who you are.' 'You abandoned your own.'
There is a cultural, social, and philosophical difference in the minds of some voters between Bernie Sanders, who left his native Brooklyn for Vermont, and Elizabeth Warren, who left Oklahoma for the East Coast. While Sanders remained on the East Coast, Warren might as well have moved to Europe.
This story is similar to that of Hillary Clinton. Both women grew up in conservative families, chose to get an education, became lawyers, are deeply committed to family and children, and 'converted' to the Democratic Party after experiencing life as working women, mothers, and wives.
No amount of fame or wealth can peel away the Girl from the Hood vibe of talented women like Beyonce or Jo Lo. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski never left their birth States.
But woe betides a woman Democratic candidate for POTUS who leaves home. Will she ever belong anywhere?
9
Women are held to SUCH a higher standard and Warren exemplifies that perfectly. If she were a man, she would be the clear front runner.
47
@Olive H Spot on, Olive!
3
I'm dumbfounded that this is the first time I'm hearing of Warren's upbringing!
Why didn't her campaign blanket the airwaves with this, instead of giving us the Native American ancestry test fiasco?
6
@Srini - trump dared her to take the test. That he
would donate to charity if she did. Did he DONATE?
4
People see Professor Warren because that's who she is. She hasn't been Betsy from Oklahoma in a very long time.
6
As I read this article and the comments, it is impossible to be a woman running for President. No matter how qualified she is, there’s always some fatal flaw about what she didn’t do right. Too wonky, too folksy, too much like HRC, not enough like HRC, poor campaign workout strategy, too polished - let’s get honest - the real reason is that misogyny runs deep within our country from the press to the political system. Biden has one good primary after absolutely devastating debate performances and poor campaigning and now he is lauded as the moderate Dems best hope. As a nation we are convinced that only old white men can lead.
1173
@Rachel
Agreed. While I don't know any female Bernie supporters personally, I am struck by their comments that seem to crave male leadership.
64
Duh. I’ve been saying this since Obama started edging out Hillary Clinton in 2008, and everyone, was convinced a black man, couldn’t be president-
This country may be deeply racist, may be, but it is definitely and unmistakably more sexist than racist.
No may be, about it.
184
@Rachel
I'm afraid I have to agree with you, much to my dismay. I was hopeful when Warren announced she was running that things would be different. But it's not. Every candidate has flaws, yet flaws somehow 'stick' to female candidates yet barely touch male candidates. Even though Biden is senile, and has lied (most recently about Nelson Mandela), he's somehow our great hope?! Meanwhile, Warren is sharp, authentic, and yet is branded as somehow untrustworthy. It's quite depressing.
279
Senator Warren is THE most substantive,qualified and intelligent person running; also the one who is most empathic. It is truly mindboggling why she isn't the frontrunner. I suppose it comes down to ,simply,chauvinism on the men's side,but why aren't more females supporting her? Is it "reverse snob-ism"? Do qualified intelligent females make others feel intimidated?
744
@Amy are you suggesting that a woman not choosing to vote for a woman is the result of her being warped by the patriarchy? Does that apply to only good liberal candidates or to female Republican candidates and Tulsi Gabbard too?
19
@Tim Lynch
I think this kind of knee-jerk anti-intellectualism is defined more by class than by gender.
People who are obviously intelligent and well educated make people who are less well educated feel inferior, and they don't like that.
I don't really think it matters much to the less well educated voter how Elizabeth Warren arrived at where she is now. She simply reminds them too much of their own shortcomings.
85
@Tim Lynch..... The bigger problem is the intelligence of the American voters. Over and again when Obama gave a speech I would encounter people who said they were not impressed. I can only conclude that there are a lot of people out there who are unable to listen and comprehend. The populists supporting Trump and Sanders stand as proof.
59
Does anyone know why Elizabeth Warren is still in this race even though she has not won any delegate in the last 3 presidential primary contests since a couple she got during the first contest in Iowa? Now that the Moderates or Centrists are joining together with their Frontrunner Biden to defeat Sanders the Progressives' Frontrunner,Warren should join other progressive former 2020 presidential candidates like Mayor Blasio and Marriane Williamson to endorse Bernie Sanders.I knew right from November 2016 that it's going to be Sanders Versus Biden.I observe that Warren has never directly criticized or go after Biden during any of the debates so far,but she's been criticizng Bernie Sanders directly and she's siphoning about 9 percent of the votes from Sanders without actually winning a single delegate.The previous anticipation by Progressives was that she's going to win some delegates and combine it with Sanders at the convention if Sanders couldn't get majority of delegates in the first round at convention.But she couldn't meet the minimum 15 percent to win any delegates. It seems like her real goal is to become Biden's Running-Mate,since it's unlikely for Sanders to choose a Running-Mate who's also in 70s in terms of age and also a Caucasian like him.So Warren is counting on Biden's success in order for her to become Biden's Vice president that can bring the progressives to Biden,and would then later on become the President in four years after Biden's one-term presidency.
10
Elizabeth Warren is clearly the most temperamentally and experientially best option we have for our next president. Her ability to show Trump up as the failure he is can not be overstated. Many of us like smart, capable women. Many of us ARE smart, capable women. You want someone to clean up a mess, you get a smart, capable woman to handle it.
998
@Jean Sims i think using the talking point about women being good at cleaning isn't the amazing comeback you think it is.
40
@Jean Sims
I Like Warren, but am disappointed to see your last smarmy remark - it's just the kind of alienating attitude Hillary's supporter's had.
26
@Jean Sims
HRC was also the most temperamentally and experientially best option for President in 2016.
Unfortunately those are not the most important qualifications in a nation with so many angry know-nothing voters and bizarre election rules that allow for candidates to win with fewer votes than the loser.
The Democrats have been outplayed by the GOP time and again, and the Trump/McConnell regime is the result.
67
It’s time for her to drop out and support Bernie, if she claims to be a progressive (which I don’t really think she is at heart). Instead of wasting everyone’s time and money, dropout, go back to work, and try again in four years with a better strategy.
2
Elizabeth Warren is clearly the most qualified, experienced, transparent, and stain-free candidate running, yet this story is relegated below the fold, and with a headline that demeans her and her supporters. While I do represent the demographic in support of her, the story could have been contextualized differently, more in support of her philosophy of standing for oppressed and marginalized voices. So I'm wondering how it serves the Times to keep marginalizing one of the very candidates it endorsed early on.
13
Elizabeth Warren is too smart, too hard working, too ambitious for most Americans. Trump or Biden are more in keeping with the normative cultural prevalence of anti-intellectualism, patriarchy, and complacency.
12
I must disagree with Mr. Goldmacher's anaylis. Throughout the debates, which have had a marked influence on the Democratic nomination race so far, Warren has pitched herself as a special ed teacher from Oklahoma. That really does not inspire confidence. If anything, she has undervalued the other end of her career as a professor with a named chair at Harvard Law school and as a senator. That never shows up in her advertising. Why would I vote for "Betsy from Oklahoma"? But I would, and did vote for Senator Warren who clawed her way up to the top of the ladder by grit and intelligence.
5
She can win if she does this:
1. Be tough on illegal immigration. I do not understand this throwing away of her chances, and her support of illegality. A law is a law.
2. Be tough on China.
These two policies is why many I know voted for Trump. If she wants to win she needs to change her tune on these two.
If she wont, then her campaign is a waste of time.
1
She's not dead yet! Stop talking about her in the past tense!
14
I am going to get clobbered for this, but I am not a Warren fan. You need more than a plan for everything to be the President. I see Warren as someone with a thin skin who is easily offended and holds grudges. I didn't like the way she reacted to both Sanders and Buttigieg. I see someone who will say unsubstantiated things about others in order to win as she did with Bloomberg. Adding alleged to the comment does not make it acceptable. She loves to tell quaint stories about her life that make her look good, but can sometimes turn out to be false, like the one about not getting a position because she was pregnant. Early on she told the story about choices she made at that time in her life without any reference to a principal being biased against her. We need someone who is willing to compromise. Who will surround themselves with a brilliant Cabinet and then listen to their advice. I don't see Warren doing that. I would vote for a fence post before I would vote for Trump, so if Warren is the candidate I will support her 100%.
3
@Teddi
You won't get clobbered from me:
I'll try her to dispel some of the ruse Warren has put us through in this reply. (I can't seem to get it posted as a comment.) The "ragged edge" of the middle class that she lived on was between the middle class and the UPPER class - not the lower class! Only someone on this edge or above would believe her stories. Her affluent Oklahoma City neighborhood, her debutante high school, her family house, their cars.... Boston papers vetted her years ago - she did not pass. The 'other' middle class edge is far less concerned with social status and humiliation and more concerned about groceries and evictions. She is clearly seeking the absolute - and however brief - LOWEST point in her 70 years (much of this as a multimillionaire and Republican) to fake a narrative.
She even said at the NH debate that she's been a "teacher" her whole life! Harvard Law School is NOT a "school" - and its professors are NOT "teachers". She's trying to parlay a first job, a part-time temporary special-ed teaching assignment (using her audiology degree, no teaching certificate), into her narrative as a lifelong school teacher "in the trenches". This is insulting to REAL public school teachers who probably earn a tenth of what she earns. She just can't have it all. A built up resume is not a real thing. She probably has more Laplander blood than Cherokee. (I have way more Cherokee blood than her and wouldn't think to advance myself with it.)
4
I don't support Elizabeth Warren at all, especially after watching her performance as a candidate this time around.
For example, she seemed to back off Medicare for All after being pressed by other candidates for specifics on how she would pay for it.
And then at the debate before the New Hampshire primary she commendably refrained from attacking other Democrats, saying she thought Trump benefited most from those attacks.
However, after losing big time in NH where she had hoped to win in a state neighboring her own, she came out like a doberman in the next two debates biting everyone except for Bernie.
I don't trust her, but many, many women do. They will fund her campaign until the convention.
She calls herself a fighter who never quits. It will be interesting if she really means it.
Her candidacy has a chance to get something done for women. A vice presidency in return for her pledged delegates at the convention would be a betrayal of her message to women.
Better yet, an appointment to serve as Secretary of the Treasury would give her a bully pulpit to practice what she has preached.
However, it may be that neither Bernie nor Biden would want to work with her, especially after watching her repeatedly savage Mike Bloomberg. Could you blame them?
Elizabeth Warren is another option for Democrats that might become viable at some point before or during the convention in Milwaukie.
If she is to be believed, she can't quit now or ever.
Honestly, the fact that a woman with substantive plans is somehow less appealing to people than white dudes without detailed plans is a statement on the general issue with education in this country--what are we teaching our kids in schools that so many grow up to think that having a set of concrete plans makes somebody less attractive as a Presidential candidate?
35
I agree Warren is the most prepared, has the most relevant expertise, and historical track record (CFPB) to be President. It is a shame we cannot get beyond the negative "smart woman syndrome". Yet after the election those smart women who ran will all be asked, and will do, the work of designing programs that make us better.
28
If the pundits and pollsters would stop telling us what we should think and what we should do, with only 4% of the vote cast, we might actually get a chance to see Warren shine again. The media has written her off and tells us our only choices are Sanders and Biden, and only Biden can beat Trump. Want to bet? I'd love to see Trump try to destroy her in a debate -- his only real weapon is Pocahantas, and she's long over that one. She would skewer him with all the skills she scrapped to gain in her law career. Okies don't quit.
25
It would be nice if the media stopped grasping at straws in order to avoid naming the obvious culprit: misogyny. The ONLY reason Warren is not far and away the front runner is because of her gender. Media, please stop trying to find other excuses!
And for those baffled by women not supporting other women, I suggest you try being a woman/girl in the midwest -- in patriarchal societies, women are the main perpetrators and enablers of rampant sexism.
22
I wish I lived in a country where "Harvard professor" was a good thing
44
Elizabeth Warren may not get to be president, but there is still plenty for her to do in a Democratic majority senate, or in a Democratic administration. She's got the chops; let the establishment use them well.
12
Elizabeth Warren made the same mistake that Hillary Clinton did. They put all their plans on their web site, so her motto is " I have got a plan for that!" The average voter does not have time or want to spend the time to read through pages and pages of wonkish studies posted on lines. Spelling your plans out in the early stage of the game also provide plenty of fodder for your opponent's opposition research team!
Warren and Klobuchar also tried out a more assertive stance at debates, which may have won more votes from younger women, but also lost the older women who are her peers, as well as some male voters.
4
I have commented before on Ms Warren's strategy. Not favorably. When running for president you are selling yourself first, your plans second. You have to get the voters to want to vote for you more than for your plans. I don't think Ms Warren sees it that way.
2
Let's see how it plays out. The pundits were so sure of themselves in 2016 and look what happened. Elizabeth Warren — the smartest, most capable candidate running — received at least two votes in today's Virginia primary.
21
Elizabeth Warren would be a good president, and I believe she would skewer Trump in any debate. Although I don’t know if debate performances will equate to victory in November. I think her polling performance has alot to do with the limit of her organization as much as the issues you raise. I do agree with some of your points, but I don’t think it’s her policy wonkishness necessarily that dampens voter engagement as much as her academic delivery in general. She is expert at talking to and informing an audience of students and peers as a professor. The majority of the target audience that she is missing has not been exposed to that style of address and doesn’t engage. I think she has done a good job of highlighting her struggles and connection with her working class background. However, if your career has been as a college professor, your going to have a tough time unloading the trappings of the trade. And I don’t think this audience reaction is a gender issue either. Her male version would have the same challenge. To bad she couldn’t get her brothers to stump for her, even if they are Trump supporters. Any way she is hanging in there for now.
5
This article completely misses the most critical aspect of Warren's candidacy, which she shares with Sanders - vision.
You want each candidate to answer three questions: How did we get into this mess? Who is to blame? How do we fix this?
Not complicated. No need for an advanced college degree. Three simple questions. Yet Warren and Sanders are the only two candidates who answer those three simple questions. Why is that?
14
@rls
Because neither the questions nor the answers are simple.
@Blackdog71
I think the answers are simple.
How did we get into this mess? Since post-WWII, we let rich take over literally everything, especially, our political power.
Who is to blame? Clearly the rich, but we didn't but up much of a fight as they took everything.
How do we fix this? Money and power of fungible - the same. Take both away from the rich, and keep taking it away in greater amounts, until we have a 'real' democracy.
2
Falsifying her minority status, fudging the Medicare-for-all numbers then backing away from it, being against super PAC money before grabbing all she can get, maybe the professional class does not care but most others do. Warren presents detailed plans to right every real or perceived problem, all to be solved solely by massive government programs born on the backs of the producing class. Few American people are Harvard faculty but most have learned to spot a phony a mile away. That’s her real problem.
12
@dksmo
She is far, far more authentic than Biden or Bloomberg. And far better for the country than Sanders, as she can actually enact policy.
3
@Io Lightning
Bernie was an Independent in congress; this is why he had just seven bills passed. Amendments, committee work, filibustering, etc., this is why he has been incredibly popular in VT for almost 40 years. Since 2016, he has transformed the democratic party platform. Warren's plans look good (to me), but they are campaign gimmicks. They would probably not be very related to actual enacted policy.
1
I thought Warren was phenomenal with the CPB and in her schooling of the banks. But what I found cringeworthy was the pandering:
"From the start, Ms. Warren’s campaign has made efforts to connect with working-class and nonwhite voters...."
It seems so inauthentic, this forced empathy. It is not real, and this sows distrust - especially in people who tend to operate mostly from their emotional center. Her attacks on Bloomberg were high-school viciousness.
7
I don't know exactly why Warren hasn't gotten more support, but it can't be *solely* due to gender bias, since we have in fact already elected a woman president: HRC won the popular vote by some 3 million votes.
6
No matter what Elizabeth does or says, she is docked for being female. That is her real challenge in this election. Gender. Every woman looking for advancement in her career faces the same issue.
Biden is lackluster at best. He's yet to provide any real course for this nation. Sanders is loud mouthed and too, much of "it's my way or the highway", which is why he couldn't get anything accomplished in congress.
Elizabeth Warren is intelligent, savvy, capable, well spoken and yes... well educated which used to be seen as a plus. Her only handicap is being female. Our country is not the leader of the world; we have fallen behind in a 1000 ways.
Third world countries elect female Presidents, but not the United States.
Instead the United States elects Trump, an unqualified man with emotional issues and a passion for revenge. But hey - the President is a male, so that's okay.
I'm team Warren because Elizabeth Warren is the most qualified candidate running for President. Unfortunately, we're most likely to get stuck with Sanders or Biden, because old white males are perceived better leaders. And really, how's that been working out for our country?
The real question is not whether we should elect a female President, but can this country endure another 4 years of a male President. My answer is no.
44
Interesting marketing analysis, as far as marketing analyses go. But the bottom line is simple and was described well by Congressman Frank: America does not vote for an female president. We seem to be completely put off by smart women, even those as compassionate as Sen. Warren. We Dems like to insult our current excuse for a president for his mommy issues, but it is clear that a lot of us have the same problems. We're like adolescents. It's really sad.
God bless America.
10
@A. jubatus
> "America does not vote for an female president."
Well, America has actually already elected a female president: HRC won the popular vote by about 4 million votes. I (white male Boomer) voted for her myself.
So maybe there's a little more going on than gender bias.
2
This article seems surprisingly unaware of gender issues. The writer seems not to be know that many people, especially working class women, resent women who have humble origins but rise beyond them. Especially when they're cast as the "smartest girl in the room," accomplished women seem "too ambitious."
19
Two weeks ago I had decided to vote for Bloomberg, but then at the last minute (mail-in ballot) I went for Elizabeth. I saw Bloomberg this morning really diss Elizabeth. I'm glad for my vote.
21
Great commentary. One correction, Biden does NOT have some mystical lock on African American voters. This is way overestimated by the poling/consultant crowd and annoying to see repeated endlessly.
8
A “Senate sinecure”? Really? Do you even know what the word means or did you mean to be so insulting?
While campaigning might be seen as holding your position but not working, your use of it in that sentence implies that she does little or no work in general.
I would like to think that you meant her seat is secure as a senator from Massachusetts, but sinecure is not the word you want.
15
Hmmm. The best, smartest, most competent, most capable candidate ending up not interesting voters? Now, where have I heard that before? America will NEVER elect a woman. There will always be excuses: she's unlikable, she's too wonky, she can't be trusted, she's shrill, she's too erudite, she's too educated, she doesn't smile enough, she smiles too much... The truth is, misogyny will always win. It isn't only men, it is women as well. Of all of the women I've heard crow over Sanders, why are they not excited about Elizabeth Warren? We live in a misogynistic society and until men AND women can admit it and see it for what it is, we will never elect a woman for President. It doesn't matter how good she is, or how great a campaign she runs. The media and most of the electorate will always find some excuse(s) as to why the woman candidate did not QUITE measure up.
18
Ms. Warren committed harakiri (also known as Seppuku) when she released her DNA test trying to prove a Cherokee heritage. She played into Trump's hands. Playing his Pocahontas game cost her any chance of winning. She looked like a phony and the article today doesn't grasp the impact of that major misstep. A large percentage of American voters consider her to be inauthentic. Authenticity counts.
8
@Pete If that were true, neither trump nor any of his appointed lackeys would have any position in gov't.
9
@Pete
Nonsense. More code for: "she's a woman."
6
@bluewhinge
Bingo! What does it say about voters who would prefer a rich, born-with-a silver spoon-in his-mouth, pathological liar, New York bully who has convinced himself he's smarter and tougher than everybody else (President Trump) versus a woman who actually DOES come from working class roots and shows genuine empathy for her struggling fellow Americans? Spoiler alert: it says that many of us prefer someone who appeals to our fears and darkest instincts rather than someone who appeals to our hopes and dreams for a better world to leave our children.
7
Your headline could be, ‘Elizabeth Warren, the only remaining candidate who is a Democrat and can speak complete sentences and articulate complete thoughts.’ I don’t know how we got boxed in like this, but she’s the only one still standing.
In future, New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina go last. They can dine on the leftovers we send them for a change.
21
She is the smartest candidate running so of course the voters will take a pass. They did so with Bill Bradly in 2000 and Howard Dean in 2004. Wake up American voter.
11
I just cast my vote for Warren.
She is who she is, both the girl from Oklahoma and the architect of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She understands the economic problems facing ordinary American families, and has a proven track record of helping to solve those problems.
Suggesting she adopt a narrative that underplays that and overplays some nebulous appeal seems too close to telling a woman to smile.
She is not running to make people comfortable with her story, she's running to make their lives better and our system more fair. Part of that unfairness is silly opinions like this; suggesting she disconnect from the breadth of depth of her experience instead of embracing it.
Shame on you, Mr. Goldmacher.
45
@Rebecca
And how much good are her 'plans' if no one likes her enough to listen?
1
@tbandc
Do you hear yourself? She's not likable. is just code speak for "she's a woman."
9
Warren had my vote until she went after Bloomberg. Did he make sexist comments to women? Yes. But he also did amazing things for women and people of color in NYC. He gave millions to fight climate change and gun violence. I remember Warren SLAMMING Scott Brown in her senate race for posing nude for Cosmo (pretty tame) while he was struggling in college. She said something like "I didn't have to take my clothes off to get through college!" Then Brown was put on the spot during a radio interview. The interviewer wouldn't stop bringing up Warren's comments. So he finally said he was glad she didn't take her clothes off and Warren jumped all over him calling him sexist, narcissistic, etc. SHE started it. He was defending himself. What she said about him was sexist and wrong. Where is her apology? You can't be sexist toward a man? Was her apology to Native Americans sincere? Didn't sound sincere to me. Timed right before she announced her candidacy. I like what Gloria Steinem. The Women's Movement (I marched BTW) emboldened women and celebrated women's strength. Why are these women unable to deal with a sexist comment? Wrong, yes. But psyche destroying? Seriously? I'm not talking about Weinstein or Cosby (both deserve to be in jail) but if Warren is destroyed by an inappropriate joke and can't let it go then she's too weak to be president. I'm voting for Biden or Bloomberg. She can stay with Bernie and their never-going-to-afford health care plans/fiction.
6
I am a man who just voted for Warren.
As a man, I felt sympathy for Bloomberg when Warren challenged his no disclosure agreement, but I do realize the Metoo movement’s importance.
Most of all the movement tells us men, what you thought was minor wasn’t, for a woman it was seriously hurtful and open to public criticism. Bloomberg took it. The next day he released the women from their nondisclosure agreements.
Bloomberg was big enough to learn and grow you should too.
4
I'm a white middle-American, not college educated, on the ragged edge of the middle class myself. Warren is by far the best candidate running. She has solid plans and isn't blowing smoke up my skirt like the three septuagenarian cranky white men are.
42
I just proudly voted for her! As others have so well noted here, Senator Warren is the best qualified candidate. Maybe my vote is wishful thinking, but I'm sticking to my principles!
55
She was great at explaining and acting on systemic financial corruption.
She stumbled and fell:
1) in limiting her audiences to three questions and then spending hours taking selfies with them,
2) in signing official forms as if exclusively an "American Indian", and
3) in attacking Bernie Sanders' character, the quality for which he is most admired.
I was told by her son that she did not endorse Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primary because the most important thing was to beat Donald Trump. Had she, as a super delegate, unequivocally supported Bernie Sanders in the primary I believe Bernie Sanders would be President today.
1
I agree Warren was a good candidate, as were Harris and Klobuchar.
I heard my middle class white, educated, over 75, friends say she was “too schoolmarmish” and even a few say they did not see a woman beating Trump. “We need someone who can stand up to him”.
I asked if, after hundreds of years of old white men and one minority, are we not due an experienced, highly qualified woman was written off because she wore skirts (except Warren)?
Money seems to have been a big limiting factor for all woman. If Harris, Klobuchar and Warren cannot survive in this primary, with their histories, who, in female clothing, can?
I still think media seemed to focus on spats, known names and Headline material, while Klobuchar’s name, even at the end, rarely made it into political essays.
Money talks and there are few women billionaires, who can self-fund, or men billionaires, who will make significant donations to female candidates.
Where is all of Sanders money coming from?If I divide his supporters into the money his campaign has, it is a hefty donation, per person.
It is sad. I had hoped to see a talented woman finally become a president, before I move on.
16
She crafted over 70 plans, described in essays amounting into tens of thousands of words. Big Bully would need only three words to defeat her in the swing states. Open borders and amnesty.
13
Elizabeth Warren was my first choice. Ms. Warren did have a branding problem. However, her candidacy was stillborn when when she promised "Medicare for All."
Hoi polloi resent educated, professional people with detailed, well-considered policies. And they especially resent it if the politician is a woman.
Ms. Warren thinks too much like a law professor, that all problems can be solved by case studies, court decisions, and legislation crafted by lawyers. To her there are facts, laws, and nothing outside that box. That's how she got herself in that silly Native American imbroglio.
I imagine there are a myriad of people in Oklahoma with a little Indian blood. That's a good thing. But if you are as Caucasian looking as Elizabeth, why make that an issue?
The sage Paul Begala was right on point. Why not emphasize Betsy from Norman, Oklahoma? She could have opened her rallies with the "Boomer Sooner" fight song (you've heard it - it grabs you - and it's more authentic than Trump's use of Rolling Stones). And on occasion worn an OU football jersey over her stretch pants. That would have endeared her in Texas, where most OU players come from. Mick Jagger wore a Jets' jersey over stretch pants. Sports apparel is a fashion statement for common folk.
Elizabeth's Okie roots would have had to be cultivated. She probably has some Sooner relatives that could have helped her.
But Warren's Senate job is no sinecure. She works hard against Wall Street.
9
This article is overthinking it.
Warren's support is built from educated wine-track types...i.e., the types who read the NY Times or at least hear the discourse emerging from elite media outlets.
Warren's "electability" took a big hit among her base right near the peak of her rise in the polls when NY Times' Nate Cohn published a devastating poll analysis in early November.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/trump-biden-warren-polls.html
Nate Cohn argued that Warren was doing much worse than the male candidates Biden and Sanders in the rust belt against Trump.
This created panic in wine-track circles about her electability and she lost her momentum. Her educated base splintered as people started shopping around for more "electable" candidates. She never recovered from that.
5
After her many incidents of dishonesty, I don't trust her.
11
Examples please?
7
@Bill how about joe Biden saying he “got arrested” in South Africa on his way to see Nelson Mandela? How about Bernie concealing his heart attack for 3 full days? The press really doesn’t cover these 3 candidates equally.
8
The Women's March, the #MeToo movement, all important movements but with no momentum. The only way a woman will ever be elected in this country is if women, as the majority of voters, decide they are ready to elect a woman. Warren is by far the most capable, of being not just a good president but a great one, and yet we fret that even if we vote for her will the other women on the cul-de-sac. I blame the media in part for shoving old white men (AGAIN) down our throats while virtually ignoring the person they endorsed. If women wanted to elect a woman they'd find a way to get it done. Until then, welcome to more of the same. Rules for women, written by men.
22
Intelligence is a handicap. We saw it with Al Gore, we are seeing it with Warren. We also saw it with Obama. He won, but that it should be possible for a black man to be so articulate and intelligent drove the racists crazy.
But not only in politics. It begins early in life. Intelligent children are labelled nerds and shunned and bullied. We are willing to accept that the other person can run faster than us or jump higher than us, but woe to them if they are brainier than us.
28
Imagine someone today, even in a relatively low cost of living place like OKC, without credentials or experience, slipping on the right dress, landing a minimum wage job, and with that income, being able to keep the house and hold together a family with (I believe) four children! Can younger voters even believe that mere pluck and wardrobe is equal to a “minimum wage” that today would have to be somewhere around $85 to $100 an hour?
What’s Warren’s plan for that, when the majority of Americans can’t scrape together $400 cash in an emergency, fewer and fewer have employer provided health insurance (to love or most probably hate), and a very thin crust of super wealthy aristocrats dominate our politics, insuring the majority of being relegated to serfdom?
A brilliant woman, I would like to hear Warren explain why we have allowed this to happen. And then propose a plan to move us ever so slightly away from the zombie policies of Herbert Hoover.
6
I cannot understand why Warren hasn't consistently been the front-runner. No one else matches her experience, upward mobility, understanding of people across the spectrum of economic and cultural differences. Elizabeth Warren has worked tirelessly as a champion both for the corporate world and for the most easily cheated uneducated consumers. Warren understands both sides of the coin, so to speak. And she's undoubtedly the most intelligent of all the candidates!
The real problem is that half our population (men) cannot fathom a woman as a leader of an important nation. India, Britain, Germany, Argentina, etc...........why not the USA?
C'mon, guys, move into the 21st Century!
35
I may never understand how, among the two progressives with nearly similar values and goals, it is the one that yells, shouts, gets red in the face that gets the progressive vote. And isn't it just so adolescent to want a revolution to turn us into democratic socialists?
Is it just a matter of not being "Betsy from Oklahoma"? I thought Warren always came across very folksy, explaining complicated ideas in plain language and weaving in stories of her toaster burning up a part of the kitchen. You can't fault her for not being at ground level.
In Warren I heard the same progressive aspirations as Sanders, but from a deep thinker who's a whiz at financial law and has a knack for legislation. Geez! If my washing machine was broken, I'd go for the repair person who doesn't shout it's a bad machine, get rid of it, but who looks for the broken part to replace. It's as straightforward as that.
So why not Warren? I've already voted for her and she's polling second to Sanders in Ca. But polls have her as the second choice after Pete so I'm hoping she picks up his voters among the 60% or so of us who have not yet voted.
If not Warren, I'll just wait for November, depressed, determined to vote for anyone not called Trump, but with no joy or enthusiasm.
And now Putin is helping both Trump and Sanders. And I'm thinking we should have an ambulance ready for Biden after Trump gets to him. Four more years of Trump?
26
@citizen vox
Yes, As I was polling today between a Bernie supporter and a Trump supporter, I thought what do these two have in common? Russia supports their candidate.
Surprising that the article doesn't mention Sen. Warren's struggle to articulate her health care plan and to identify its costs after prematurely endorsing Sanders's "Medicare for All" concept. Her popularity seemed to take a hit on that issue, especially as she sought eventually to occupy some sort of middle ground between Bernie's full-throated endorsement of Medicare for All and the arguments of Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and others that Medicare for All was an aspirational goal and that a public option would be a more practical first step towards that goal.
Mr. Goldmacher had previously identified this as problematic for the candidate, but now it seems to have silently taken a backseat to her failure to include enough of her roots in her advertising.
5
There seems to be a lot of confusion about her candidacy in this article and in the comments. We can let gender and style and demographics cloud the analysis. Yes, all of these factors contributed but the fact is that she ended up rising and dropping in the polls for the same reason. She chose to play the roll of the practical realist and the radical socialist at the same time. She wanted to be the one with the details, all the plans and all the numbers. But she also wanted to chase Bernie Sanders providing healthcare, education, loan forgiveness, etc. It turns out that you can't be both. If you're going to be practical and responsible, you can't give away the store. And if you want to provide a ton of free services, you can't make all the numbers add up without huge tax increases on all taxpayers.
The media (and especially the NY Times) could have played a different role here. Throughout the middle of 2019, while she was releasing plan after plan, much of the media took the bait, praising every plan and reporting her talking points verbatim. There was virtually no criticism. No check on her proposals to force her to make course corrections. So she kept going. And as soon as she faced her first real test, the public's realization that her medicare-for-all proposal could be funded as she promised, her entire campaign fell apart. It's been downhill from there. Had the NY Times challenged her last Summer things could have been different.
5
Sen. Warren's obstacle in her delegate hunt is that if she appeals to high-information voters, she is asking for support from people who realize that she has no path and are likely to be choosing another option.
4
Elizabeth Warren has proven to be a chameleon candidate.
She's proclaimed, then denied she had Native American heritage. She had a particular "solution" for virtually every social and economic issue. Then she shifted to speaking in more general, less programmatic, terms.
Simply put, I have no idea exactly who this person is. One day she's a "progressive" akin to Sanders. The next day she's more moderate -- just slightly to the left of Biden.
Etc., etc.
It comes down to a fundamental confusion as to who she is, what she believes and where does she draw a line rather than shape-shift.
The more and more she campaigns -- the more and more she seems like Hillary and thus doomed to the same fate.
12
@George S. How about her flip flop on Super PACs? She is not the candidate to get behind despite her intelligence.
4
Who knows how all of this will play out.
Politically I am closer to Sanders than to Warren. Particularly and seriously on foreign policy. But I do like Warren and her being a woman and Sanders being one more man in the way of women made me more than a little sympathetic towards her. Without getting too complicated two things just soured me on her. Her backing away from medicare for all and her attack on Sanders both seemed opportunistic and more than a little dishonest. As did her insistence that she was a capitalist. The last one for no apparent reason but to distinguish her from Sanders by pandering to people who were trying to caricature him and those supporting him. Now on the positive side of all that. She was awkward and tone deaf. So in my mind that speaks well of her. Since most politicians are much slicker when they do those things. Or at least are not so transparent.
2
Of course we're all disappointed that Ms. Warren is not the clear front runner, and looking for all the possible reasons she isn't is natural. I'm a 62 year-old white male, and she's the best candidate I've had to vote for in my life. Maybe it's not just the misogyny, or the 'leftist' label, or the not 'folksy' enough persona. The data from the article seems to show that the country just isn't smart enough to elect a smart, competent woman. All the other stuff figures in, of course, but look who the POTUS is currently, and you can see for yourselves that Americans from the US are not the sharpest blades in the rack. It's why we have super delegates, think tanks, lobbyists, and all manner of organizations to influence, and if necessary countermand the will of 'The People'. It's all become like The Oscars, but worse because governmental policy has real consequences, day to day and for decades to come. Undermining faith in government and institutions has driven the quality of our political leaders into the 'Carnival Zone', and with it our ability to move society forward in a responsible and sustainable manner, or to respond to ongoing societal problems with long lasting solutions. People in general are just shallow, self-centered, lazy thinkers, and cynical. We're on our way out as a Global Leader, get used to the idea and plan accordingly. There are better places to live on the planet, where intelligence is valued.
40
@JP
" she's the best candidate I've had to vote for in my life."
Although that is not a high bar given what the DNC and the RNC offer up every four years.
Go Liz!
3
Whatever Elizabeth Warren is (kind of hard to determine), it is time for her to drop out. If she is truly progressive as she claims, that is exactly what she would do.
5
Organizations that accomplish things, like successful businesses and armies, have plans. Mobs have "movement".
19
All I have to do is think about Bernie, Biden, or Warren on the debate stage with Trump, and Warren is the only winner. She will speak best and govern best. She has my vote.
72
This analysis fails to consider the cultural and personality differences of Warren that have nothing to do with gender (cf. the differences between her and Nina Turner) and everything to do with a particular approach to politics that does not play well beyond preaching to a likeminded and demographically similar choir. African-American feminist critiques of white liberal, largely middle- and upper-middle-class feminism are instructive in understanding her failure. She is a candidate who says "darn" as in "ah shucks" whereas Bernie uses four letter words, literally and metaphorically speaking, and her critique of economic injustice is not nearly as penetrating or deep. Most fundamentally, she fails to understand that, at this stage of a political process, people want a meaningful political vision rather than plans, which add up to very little on their own. Wonks have plans; politicians have talking points; and political revolutionaries build movements. Objectively speaking, one cannot deny that Bernie, for all his faults and regardless whether one likes his politics, has built a movement that depends on a different coalition of voters and is an asymmetric threat to the Democratic establishment.
4
Warren's failure has nothing to do with gender or her failure to describe her roots (which, frankly, she does all the time on the stump). Her failure is due to her loss of support from the progressive wing of the party. She lost that support because people felt they couldn't trust her. She backed away from M4A. She repeatedly, gratuitously attacked Sanders (who has never returned the fire). She has a Super PAC pouring $14 million in to the race. Add that to some of the sketchy things in her background (like the racist claim that she's "American Indian" -- her words), and most progressives concluded she's an opportunist who will do and say anything to advance her own career. Unfortunately, this concern has been confirmed by her refusal to drop out, which is only helping Biden, and hurting the only progressive remaining in the race. Progressives will not soon forget the dishonorable role she's played in this election.
9
Morning on another important election day, another pre-obituary of the Warren campaign on the NYT front page. I will ask again, as I asked before the New Hampshire primaries, why an article like this can't come out the day AFTER the election? Nothing at all against it being published, and I do appreciate many of the points -- but when articles like these show up right before people are heading to the polls it really seems like an "even if you like this person don't vote for them because they aren't 'electable'" message, which, of course, has been one of the major problems plaguing Warren the whole campaign.
56
@Ben
I guess it depends on one's perspective. For those folks in SC this report is AFTER the election.
1
@George S.
SC is one state; Super Tuesday involves FOURTEEN states and will determine about 50% of the delegates sent to the Democratic Convention.
6
@Ben As someone who has voted year after year in California, with the election being 'called' before my vote is counted, or even months before I get to vote-- I am sick of this pre-emptive strike on Election Day. Let the process play out fully before the autopsy, please! (Maybe we all need to start quoting Mark Twain in comments, 'The reports of my demise were greatly exaggerated.")
I’m tired of Bernie peeps throwing around their views and threats.
I’ve had my door knocked three times in the past week by Bernie folks. I appreciate their ground work and tell them so.
I will be voting today; I will be supporting Warren. But, I do tell them I will support Bernie if he is the eventual nominee.
But, I also tell them they had better get behind the nominee, as well-regardless of who it is.
You cannot claim to have THE candidate and then sit out the vote if he doesn’t make it all the way.
That’s the very definition of willful ignorance.
73
She is a brilliant woman, but in many ways a clumsy politician. She continued to hammer on Bloomberg in two debates, when she really needed to go after Bernie who was the frontrunner and her biggest competition. Why?
The DNA debacle, the flip flop on Medicare for All and now the use of a Super Pac after excoriating Mayor Pete reeks of a hypocrisy that many of us can't overlook.
I would much rather see her as the nominee than Bernie, and apparently her strategy now is to hope to come in third and be a compromise candidate. What could go wrong?
6
PLEASE stop saying that Biden has an overwhelming lead nationally with black voters. In fact, Sanders leads among black voters nationally. For a summary of recent polls on the question, read this: https://theintercept.com/2020/03/01/south-carolina-results-biden-black-vote-sanders-msnbc/
4
She should have announced for president in front of her childhood home in Oklahoma with her extended working class family around her.
Should have been photographed on the sidelines of a Sooners football game
1
It’s physically Impossible to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
1
Elizabeth, almost everyone will find a thousand and one reasons to dislike you.
The rest of us, (and there are some very impressive names here), realize your intellect and understand fully that you are the most capable candidate.
It’s now down to you, Bernie, and Joe. The Democrats are in capable hands. I’m holding out hope that they are _your_ hands!
Go Elizabeth go! We may not beat either Joe or Bernie, but we’ll beat The Duck hands down.
Storm on Democrats! Take the House, take the Senate, and take the Presidency.
21
Mr. Goldmacher, the reports of the Warren campaign's death are greatly exaggerated.
21
Ideas and opinions abound about the apparent unelectability of Elizabeth Warren. I don't buy one of the leading arguments - that she is a female - for her demise. People will forever second guess what caused all those who once supported her to instead back her primary rival, Bernie Sanders; a man that in my opinion doesn't even come close to possessing the qualities that would make Ms. Warren one of the better presidents our country has ever had.
While some will continue to debate her shortcomings in her quest for the nomination, it is time to move on. Whether the candidate turns out to be Biden, or Sanders, or someone else, everyone has to come together to back whoever it is.
We must defeat Trump in November.
6
@Richard Phelps The hero in Richard Hughes book The Fox in the Attic has a take on politicians and why we elect them. The hero thinks that ambition is the sign of an ignoble mind.
Hughes writes that politicians are like sewer cleaners, doing a beastly but necessary job that others are only too grateful to have others do for them. He says that people only notice politicians when the stink gets too bad.
The reek from the Trump sewer is pretty high right now and a lot of people notice it. Warren’s well thought out plans may not be what is needed right now. First a big wind needs to come along and blow away the smell of rotten and rank effluvia from the Trump administration. We will have an idea at the end of the day which of the remaining candidates can best clean the sewer for those of us who are gagging on the stink.
And some of us indeed may have to hold our noses to vote for the best sewer cleaner.
Please please tell all Democrats to vote in your area. We need all of the votes in the red states!!
1
@Bashh Thank you for that post! I had not heard of the book, The Fox in the Attic, but your description certainly makes sense. I have never been so immersed in politics before, but my fear of another four years of Trump has me glued to the news of who will win the Democrat nomination. The stink today is about as bad as it has ever been and much worse than I thought I would ever smell.
If the people you turned to for analysis are a couple of insider political consultants, it's not a surprise you misunderstand what Warren's campaign has meant to many of us who support her. She wants to change the calculus that's come to define our political culture and return to the public a meaningful voice and a stake in how our government operates. She wants politics to work for the benefit of all of us. And she has already proved she has the experience and the skills to accomplish significant work toward that end. It's true, she didn't stress her "origin story" the way the political press corps wanted to hear it -- as something that could be fit into an glib narrative of "overcoming the odds" and then ignored. When I heard Warren talk about her history, it was in a context of bringing regular peoples' needs front and center in American politics, and about her political ideas and vision for making that happen. Perhaps in this era, it is a political mistake to do nuance and talk about plans. But that's not Warren's fault. She's one of my senators, and initially, I was sorry she decided to run -- I thought is would undercut her work in the senate. However, as the campaign has gone on, I'm deeply grateful to her for running and I still want her to be the nominee. The story she's telling is the one the country needs to hear.
26
Of all the candidates, both remaining and former, Warren is probably the best prepared and best suited for the presidency, just as Hillary Clinton was. But apart from the educated voters who already like her and know and admire her résumé, “Harvard Professor” really isn’t a selling point. She’s obviously concerned about bread and butter issues for the majority of Americans, but I don’t think her campaign has convinced enough people of that. I guarantee that the average voter doesn’t have strongly developed thoughts about who gets ambassadorships - too much inside baseball, Elizabeth.
5
I think a lot of Americans object to Warren because she reminds them of a scolding schoolmarm when they really just want to go outside and play and NEVER think of anything meaningful because it’s too much mental work.
7
By what authority at this moment does anyone ‘guarantee’ the nomination of either Sanders or Biden, or a Trump reëlection? Mathematically, we’re not there yet. A much clearer picture will emerge tomorrow, but a lot of Senator Sanders’ supporters have seemed determined long before the publication of this piece to patronize Warren supporters, as if our votes were theirs to claim all along.
Even a casual observer of Democratic politics could have missed the daily hiss of ‘Warren is nothing like Sanders’, but somehow she’s keeping us from him: we would otherwise embrace the shining knight, but she’s _tricked_ those of us who found solace, vitality and inspiration in her candidacy—she’s bewitched us. It’s not only insulting and undemocratic, but also illogical.
I ask my fellow Warren supporters voting today or later not to donate their votes. If SHE decides to suspend her campaign before the N.Y. primary, I will see where we are and what has been learned from the earlier contests in order to cast a vote that in my own judgment contributes most to the probability of evicting the Father of Lies from the nation’s house. That is my prerogative and I dare anyone to come try to wrest it out of my hands. Talk to me, persuade me, but do not clack your beak at me about inevitabilities after four tiny state contests alone.
19
@David Endorsements mean nothing. In 2016 The Times and many others endorsed Clinton. This year The Times endorsed Warren and Klobauchar. Klobuchar is gone and Warren is on life support. The endorsements for Biden may have just angered some voters who think that the DNCC, who should be evenhanded in the primary, is looking for a coronation instead of an election. They may turn out to benefit Sanders or Bloomberg more than anyone.
1
Don't count her out! Warren may take you by surprise this Super Tuesday. She would be an excellent, compassionate, competent president.
14
@Scientist
She's not even predicted to win her own state!
1
The reason Senator Warren doesn't focus on her biography are obviously twofold, the first being that voters aren't being asked to support "Betsy from Oklahoma", they're choosing her because she's now "Elizabeth from Harvard", and the second being that publicizing her personal biography must also remind everyone about her botched attempt to grapple with the ancestry question. The fact is that the Senator simply hasn't run a good good campaign, and now simply seems to be running as an anti-Bloomberg spoiler, for purposes that are difficult to define. If that's all she's got left, then she should get out now.
9
Warren took bad advice from Hillary.
Her campaign never recovered.
11
Warren is a far better choice than Biden or Sanders, and supporters of both of those candidates would vote for her. She will be a unifying nominee for our country.
72
@Colleen So far not enough voters have not shown that they would vote for her.
2
@Bashh Sanders supporters do not like Biden, and Biden supporters do not like Sanders. Polls are showing that both Sanders and Biden supporters would vote Warren if she were the nominee, and would be a unifying choice.
4
@Colleen I like Warren, but I like the progressive platform more than any of the candidates themselves. Sanders has won 3 of the first 4 primaries. Warren placed 3rd, 4th, 4th, and 5th in each. How does her remaining in the primary compute to a potential to do anything but split the progressive vote and handing victory to Biden? Warren already proved she has no chance in the first 4 contests, and the fact that she is still in this race at this point speaks volumes to her true motivations.
1
i favored EW but when she said she wanted to dismantle the tech companies. (amazon, facebook) that was just not understanding something. and it wasn't being a woman thing really. her biography along with blooimberg's are the best. - she made a tactical mistake by - yes honestly - giving the real costs of her progressive measures - while the slicker less honest bernie continued to be mum on the costs of his ideas. and going hyper to the left then taking some steps back. those two acts were the moment when her support dropped in new hampshire.
1
I remember back in business school when I learned all about strategies, plans, etc. It was critical, I believed, to understand the difference between "strategic" and "tactical."
The I became a management consultant and developed high level strategies for clients. Those strategies were very, very important, I believed.
Then my clients started asking me to implement those strategies. It was then that I learned what was actually important.
Anyone who believes having a plan is the same as actually delivering on it is admitting that she's got no real world experience.
10
@AACNY
Warren designed and delivered a functioning federal agency that helps people navigate financial markets and protects consumers from fraud and abuses. There's a lot of real-world experience, at a very high level, behind an accomplishment like that.
21
@AACNY
Yes, it's a campaign ruse. I believe, any real plan would go through iterations from a cadre of legislators, aides and officials before even making it to congress.
3
@carl bumba
That's how she delivered it: building support in the Obama administration and in Congress; collaborating to create the structures that would make it work. The CFPB is no ruse. It was passed into law as part of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, and has been aiding consumers ever since.
4
The voters liked Pete better most places. They liked Amy better in New Hampshire. Hillary had a thousand policies, all posted tidily online, but it didn't help her, either. Warren just hasn't worn well on the stump. The best policy in the world still needs some kind of charisma to carry it.
18
what lost me re warren:
1) starting every single answer with "so" and "look." she lectures AT people rather than demonstrating open-minded thinking WITH people.
2) too iconoclastic (in love with her own ideas) and none of these "plans" show partnership, teamwork, or willingness to refine.
3) fake biography: the native american thing, the insistence that she was fired for being pregnant when the school system in question said that was NOT the case, she left even though they offered her a new contract albeit in a different role which happens to everyone on annual contracts. it's as if she must prove she personally experienced every possible slight to attract other voters from the weak side.
4) going so LOW: the attacks on her rivals were like a barking dog trying to hang onto a pants leg. in the case of bloomberg, they went too far, making unfounded innuendo. undignified, desperate.
5) promises that could never be kept unless she forces them on america by executive decision, which she said many times she would invoke rather than working the aisle.
and i regret that, because in her better moments she was surely better than HRC: at least she tried to connect with some voters. but selfies aren't enough for a country that needs delicate surgical repair, not another iconoclast and not a revolution.
56
@Aubrey Spot on. When some wonder, "Why isn't she the frontrunner?" you have some really good answers.
6
@Aubrey
1) Women lecture, yet Men do what? If Warren is lecturing so is Bernie
2) She is over and over again shown so much open-mindedness. She really liked Cory Booker's Cory Plan for a Better Presidential Clemency System, so she adopted it giving him credit. She liked Senator Gillibard's plan on paid leave, she adopted it. She liked Kamala Harris's plan on Child Care, guess what she adopted it. She gave them all credit. She recognizes good work when there is and shows a willingness to work with others.
3) If you read her biography, she was told growing up that her mother's side had native american blood. Like if she didn't truly believe she had native american ancestory, why would she do a DNA test. It was clearly a misfire. In terms of pregnancy, given the time she was pregnant, it's a common story. I believe it.
4) Please find me a statement she made towards Bloomberg that was false. All Fact-checkers I believe sided with her, and caught Bloomberg in many many lies. I don't see them as attacks as valid criticisms.
5) American Democratic system is broken and corrupt. It was broken and corrupt before Trump got here. She's the only one who willing to fix the system. She has a long-term view. Yes this might require doing acts through executive action. Desperate times call for desperate actions.
She doesn't want a revolution (You are thinking of Bernie). Her whole thing is "Big Systematic Change" She wants a working system that works for everyone.
20
Warren has worked herself into a position where Democrats are hoping she'll stay in the race to siphon delegates from Sanders, who would be a disaster.
Her failure has many causes. Goldmacher talks about her "story," but she overdoes it. She is moved by her own emotions. Her whole selfie racket is too much. You can find hard luck stories in any crowd, but she uses them to cover up what she is actually going to do in her "plans."
Like Bernie, she doesn't explain anything. The wealth tax has failed in every country where it was tried (Economist Magazine). Why is hers going to work? and how?
Childcare for all? With our worker shortage, where is she going to get trained child care workers fluent in English (since language acquisition is critical at ages 0-5) for millions of children, including in rural areas?
Her attacks on Bloomberg in recent debates were a mistake. Self-indulgent and emotional, she yelled at him as if he had taken her parking space, and came across as a nag. Would we want her as our President yelling and attacking heads of state whom she disapproved of? The statesmanlike approach was to address his campaign issues, where there is disagreement.
She lacks charisma and does not come across as a leader; the Senate job is her level of competance. Stay in the race Elizabeth! Spoiler is your perfect role!
16
So you say “But her populism and popularity never fully trickled down.“ and about Sanders “ Sanders’s democratic socialist pitch” -how is Sanders not a populist and Warren is?!
And I agree with others who agree that a gender played a role- I just think that role is much bigger than you describe.
I base this on my experience.
7
Talk about a premature autopsy. You endorsed Warren not so long ago; at least wait until she drops out. Gray Lady, we thank you for your participation in this democratic process, including your slickly produced podcast, "The Choice."
12
If you want to see plans that work, start with this one.
http://links.mikeforgunsafety.com/u/click?_t=5b0d5fddffaf408eaf38fbe258442487&_m=61f86bd8cd8d4c008705fdb828c3b185&_e=EQYvQVeJd0wrmQZKyArAjRAfIFen2TXI7g-Jbb-aj08EtVuSEORGTd4jaz4JZ8qAk-oIfLl83tTPneTHCoj8GmeUd3wR-buF1nIDKbWyXQliMES9oiYkSeUzapjN4U4ZufUuGxcAgcE3Wbz4cxtpj3CHWNRMiiNHzVbjf5DZSnY5kiE2FCY4n2F0e-cYbYD92z3-tmh3GaYcik_5izBTPeJOS-OcV1MZf9MKV7H3EoURWZ3YWh98lCvFzg4zsB_2wnqXMyCnhWD2oFo_AJkGzAXegeM0evooF4nF-AlLjg3N-U4LkgmjlVV2C8nu4Uel05TkhVsay3hPSVe205_KUJPKKpvLHeqJ0B3Nh0U9vlRSvHcq3E-F1va6ZUakuxFD2cil1fMAgiQLENx5SVWc-A==
2
Nice, you're finally giving some ink to Warren, when most of your coverage has been on the other candidates. She's obviously the most qualified with the best prescriptions for fixing a broken America. We love her!
43
The average voters criteria for their candidate of choice is too often based on some singular detail of the candidate's history, personality, a single misstep, without dwelling too much on how their favorite would govern and work with Congress.
This Pocahontas thing with Warren is such a silly item to dwell on. And the Press has latched on to it, too often mentioning it when writing about Warren.
Same with Buttigieg - the Press almost always mentioning the black voter problem.
Maybe it is harder for women to appeal as inspirational...I just don't know. But of the remaining candidates Warren certainly is the most intelligent, energetic, and practical.
But can she win? I only have a week to decide who I'm voting for on March 10. Vote Blue No Matter Who.
5
I was an ambivalent Warren supporter initially. Leaning mostly for Sanders, I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. No more. I don’t know what happened to her, but her judgment to hire ex-Hillary campaign staffers was disastrous. Next came her flip-flopping on core progressive issues that had shot her to the front of the crowded pack, Then the absolutely bizarre and inexplicable attack on her “friend” Bernie Sanders. Now, it’s back to the wine caves and big money donors. So much potential but a common story of what so frequently happens when the consultants get their hooks into an integrity weak politician.
16
Unfortunately, Ms. Warren has proven herself to be quite the dishonest one, with all her career advances based on lies, and a stellar record of saying and doing anything that will advance her own personal interests. And for someone that vilifies people with corporate connections, she goes out of her way to support her own corporate connections, that being the education industry. Paying our dear children's student loans simply shifts the burden to the taxpayers while doing nothing to address the gross inefficiencies and bloat associated with our current education industry, where costs go up, value goes down, and Warren's plan is to simply throw more money at it. Ms. Warren is no leader, she's just another self-centered elitist that thinks she knows more than anyone else.
21
@DJOHN precisely... voters determined this rather rapidly in the early states.... I really have to say, her fall really coincides with her increasing the number of Hillary Clinton campaign people coming in.... no surprise.
4
I adore Elizabeth Warren and think she is one of the finest Presidential candidates in American history....wicked smart, compassionate, empathetic, articulate, a great fighter, a fine communicator and a heart of gold.
Her magnum opus, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has returned billions to average Americans from predatory corporate crooks, creeps and criminals, is one of the finest public policy constructs in American history, and Republican Robber Barons hate it with a passion and Trump and his GOP have essentially closed it for right-wing renovations.
The fact that Warren polls poorly is simply yet another indictment of America's collapsed intelligence and information deprivation syndrome.
The lady fights hard for Americans and for some reason they just don't like her, no doubt in large part due to cultural and institutional misogyny, but also due largely to America's dreadfully underfunded public education system and pronounced preference for ignorance.
The fact that our last two Republican Presidents - both severely challenged in both critical thinking and their English language skills - got anywhere close to the Presidency, is a sad, tragic American indictment of the average American voter.
Just as good old Democratic Presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson replied when a supporter told him that “every thinking person in America will be voting for you,” Stevenson said “I’m afraid that won’t do—I need a majority.”
Elizabeth Warren can sadly relate.
404
@Socrates The Stevenson quote remains a favorite. Also important is Ambassador Kennedy's plan to "sell Jack like soap flakes." The marketing aspect of politicking isn't an option. Manufacturers don't simply offer the back label with ingredients and instructions. Warren opted for a very particular--and labored, IMHO--package. Maybe it was the wrong bet.
2
@Socrates I had never heard the Stevenson quote. Sounds like it could have been his a Basket of Deplorables moment.
2
@Bashh Actually, no. He delivered that quip with wit and aplomb. It was genuinely funny. HRC said hers with usual mix of condescension and martyrdom.
12
She misled us about her own corporate fundraising, about taxes and costs related to her m4a plan, about taking PAC money, 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.
If Bloomberg had interrupted, yelled at and talked over Warren as she did him, the headlines would quite rightly have been about misogyny and mansplaining. Yet she was celebrated for just that behavior.
13
The real problem for Elizabeth Warren is that she is a smart, well-educated woman who managed to advance herself through hard work. I heard an interview with a voter in S. Carolina who stated that she wouldn't vote for Elizabeth Warren because she was too smart. When will this country learn that we really need someone with Ms. Warren's skill set?
891
@Victoria I Paterno Yes, it's depressing. There was one quote, I believe in a NYT article, where a woman said she didn't like Warren because Warren doesn't listen. Warren is literally the one speaking to thousands of voters to hear their struggles and she adjusts plans when critiqued, making them stronger. Of course improving plans is a sign of weakness in a world dominated by male leadership narratives...
136
@Victoria I Paterno
It’s an old-fashioned phrase, but one that bears repeating: inferiority complex.
I want a president who is smarter than I am, more accomplished, more empathetic, more courageous. But many voters are so insecure, with such a shaky sense of their own worth that they are “threatened” by someone who is any way superior to them. They want an equal as president, the old “have a beer with” type.
Yes, of course, this is especially the case when the candidate is a woman. But not exclusively, as Bush v Gore so poignantly reminds us. Truth be told? I would have preferred that beer with W, who would certainly be more fun than his opponent -- plus, his teetotalor status meant I could be the designated drinker.
But someone like W as president, instead of the vastly more intelligent and thoughtful Mr. Gore? Not for this voter.
Unfortunately, voters like me seem to be in the minority.
54
@Victoria I Paterno People want someone who reflect themselves, simply put, a mirror image.
5
I voted for Elizabeth Warren yesterday in CA. I don't see her as rigid as Sanders & certainly she has a more modern attitude than Biden. She would wipe the floor with dumpty in a debate.
146
@Nina HRC wiped the floor with him at every debate in 2016 and sadly it didn’t help her win anything but the popular vote.
4
Reading the column and then many of the comments, I find myself in good company. Why didn't more people see what we see in Warren? "America will break your heart." That's a lesson I remember from Eugene McCarthy's campaign. In our politics, so much depends upon finding the lowest common denominator.
37
When I think of which candidate I would like to have in charge of our response to a crisis like COVID19, I think of Liz.
We live in a rapidly changing world with multiple "existential" challenges like epidemics and the climate crisis. We badly need thoughtful, well-informed leaders who can analyze, plan, and execute our responses to them.
Is it mostly a matter of chance when we get the right person? We ought to be looking at voters as critically as we do the candidates. Perhaps we are destined to continue to select leaders who are most expert at detecting and navigating our prejudices and preconceptions and taking advantage of them.
Sometimes the best candidate is the most charming and has the most appealing backstory and sometimes they aren't and don't. Sometimes we get lucky. Sometimes we don't.
13
In a civilian crisis requiring the exercise of elevated government authority, she is the best of the remaining contenders by a lot.
The problem with her campaign, other than the disquqlifying cheap shot at Sanders, is that she seems to think such a centrally controlled approach can address every societal concern for the long term. The downside risks of such an approach are enormous.
2
Liz promotion of a wealth tax is great. She,unlike Bernie, wants to have the 'market' remain, but be subordinate to people. I remain in her camp, with Uncle Joe for VP.
17
I support Elizabeth Warren and feel connected to her mindset and ethical compass more than with any other candidate I have ever seen. That includes Obama. There is this intensity to deal with issues and problems in the right way, looking at the big picture.
In some ways, she has similar instincts and value than Bill Clinton, sexism excluded, and somewhat similar backgrounds.
But, that's where the comparison stops. Clinton had exceptional political skills, like Obama and much like Buttigieg today. They are born politicians. Warren is not. She is a good learner but not a born political genius.
And hence, she makes rookie mistakes no other candidate would make. The DNA test, how naive was that! Getting cornered on defending the cost of Medicare for All? Bernie saw that coming and brushed off the attacks and it basically worked for him.
I seen a candidate who thinks she is doing the right thing by being serious and transparent and sometimes people take advantage of that.
She is 70. A fast learner. Do not exclude a Warren 2014 candidate but, this time, armed with much better political tools and brand recognition.
10
Yep, Elizabeth for Queen. She's intelligent, knowledgeable, dynamic, witty, but the thing I like most about her is that she knew to change her mind when faced with reality. Truly what the world needs now.
13
@Marie
So you think it’s GOOD that she misled us about her own corporate fundraising, taxes and costs related to her m4a plan, and the virtues of PAC money? Not to mention the pose as a crusader for regular folks, having helped Dow Chemical shortchange women who were made sick by their breast implants.
2
I think voters had a hard time figuring out who she is. Is she a working class hero? A populist firebrand? A wonky professor-type? Voters need to be able to identify with some core parts of a candidate’s character, and that obviously didn’t happen with many voters.
Maybe her unique persona was too complex to comprehend for our modern attention spans. Shame on us. On the other hand, marketing one’s image is a necessary skill perfected by the most talented public figures, so maybe the Presidency wasn’t the right job for her. Good luck to her in her next endeavors, I’m sure she’ll be very effective.
4
Ms. Warren has multiple problems. The first on the list is her populism and unrealistic policy proposals- something she shares with Sanders but without his long history and "authentic" zealousness. Another is exactly her "wonkiness" and how disingenuous and politically premeditated the coming of age story sounds against the background of what she actually is- a Harvard law professor (as in "I'm really just like you- only better"). A third problem is her relationship with the truth- the "native American" imbroglio will not go away since it never was about a "little Indian blood" but rather about self identifying as native American on her U. Penn. Law school bio.- and then allowing Harvard to cynically identify her as a "minority" professor. That was something she could have made clear at the time was unethical and demanded be retracted but I don't know that she ever did that until it became an issue.
22
One candidate clearly terrifies this country’s power-brokers, and that candidate is Senator Elizabeth Warren: a sharp strategist, an effective communicator, an empathetic campaign presence, and an accomplished and detail-oriented legislator.
Trump’s attacks didn’t stop her, online trolls’ witless attacks couldn’t dent her, and the money Bloomberg poured into the race at the 11th hour specifically to oppose her (name-checking her along the way) if anything only galvanized her resolve…
But modern journalism’s failure to adequately cover the details of her platform or the progress of her campaign — opting instead to focus on whatever shiny trivia pastes together most easily into some stupefying Punch-and-Judy show — may deprive us of the next president we most need to lead us through these troubling times.
That her life story is one of rising from poverty and succeeding despite constant struggle is laudable, and kudos to the New York Times for, at least in this article, giving Ms. Warren her due. But why haven’t you covered her plans with the same breathless excitement with which you cover debate fisticuffs or these Horatio Alger stories?
This is a problem. Simply put, if smart, sensible people can’t get their smart, sensible plans covered, because only flashy nonsense garners headlines, how can you complain when, rather than smart, sensible people running for president, we narrow the field down to facile, flashy demagogues vying for our constant attention instead?
94
@Daniel Merchán Seriously. This article is a microcosm of everything that's wrong with political reporting today.
9
@Daniel Merchán
"One candidate clearly terrifies this country’s power-brokers, and that candidate is Senator Elizabeth Warren..."
Couldn't agree more.
14
Cokie Roberts noted that American vote for candidates according to what they stand for, except for President, where they vote for whom they are.
And that , not her excellent program, is where many found her wanting. Too many zig-zags, too many versions of herself
4
There are no better demonstrations of how deeply engrained sexism and misogyny are in our culture than the 2016 election and the 2020 Democratic primaries.
Clinton was the most qualified presidential candidate we have had in modern history, and even though she won the popular vote, her experience and qualifications still weren’t enough in a few states that mattered.
Warren is the best candidate the Dems have running this time around, and meanwhile, unhinged Bernie and mediocre *at best* Biden have won states but not her?
I actually do still think she can win, though, and her plans would go the furthest to restoring trust in our institutions, which is what is necessary for a health democracy. Super Tuesday voters, get out the vote for Warren!!!
56
@L ingrained in the Press, maybe. But the voters have only spoken in tiny Iowa, tiny New Hampshire, tiny Nevada and mid-sized South Carolina. It is the Press which has voted, and they've thrown out almost all the candidates and are now demanding we wrap it up and choose somebody before the day is out.
If you want to know why there are no people of color in this race, ask the NYTimes who ran the hit piece on Kamala Harris. If you want to know why there are no women at the top, ask the Katy Turs and Lisa Lerers and Mara Gays of the press world who regularly plug their favorites and not cover everybody. Katy Tur has been swooning over Bernie for two weeks now. Mara Gay worked her butt off on TV to try to end Biden's campaign, and is now backing Biden against Sanders and Bloomberg.
None of them ever even mention Warren. No coverage on TV has talked about her. She's in 3rd place going into today. Bloomberg hasn't amassed a single delegate yet.
But Bloomberg gets coverage from this outlet and the TV ones because...wait for it... he's from New York.
We are now living through a presidency of a New York businessman. How's that working out?
The press shafted Warren and now wants to blame the public for no women in the running. If there is sexism and misogyny in this race, blame the politics editor at NYT and the talking heads on MSNBC. We voters have no trouble voting for a Warren or a Harris or a Klobuchar, but they won't be in the race by the time we get asked.
17
@L
"Clinton was the most qualified presidential candidate we have had in modern history"
This is why Dems lose. The statement above is demonstrably false. She wasn't more qualified than LBJ, Nixon, McGovern, Carter, Reagan, GW Bush, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, or McCain. She just wasn't. The willingness of Dems to just buy into, and then repeat silly things like this as a mantra, is a group delusion.
3
@GMooG
Hillary, in particular, is notoriously corrupt.
That’s why she lost.
A large segment of the nation voted against her (and her husband) because of that.
1
Incredible how everyone will laud Warren as intelligent and someone who can get things done, when she doesn't even have the awareness to realize all she is doing by staying in the race at this point is allowing the DNC establishment to torpedo the other progressive in the race. She has terrible political instincts and is now actively harming the progressive cause to feed her own ego. She is dead as a progressive if she costs Bernie this race.
9
@Steven Good god. Her ego? You don't think Bernie Sanders has an ego? Joe Biden? I mean what reason, besides saying that he's the most likable has, Biden given for why we should vote for him as president? Talk about ego? That's Bloomberg - mister I can spend half of a billion on ads and still not have my quality of life change one iota. I'm not going to bother talking to voters, just tell them they should vote for me in ads. They all have big egos.
Sanders could be too progressive, read ideological and rigid, to win. It is a gamble that I don't think we should take. Besides which, I think Elizabeth is more qualified by a mile. Why should she drop out for him?
6
@Steven
Between the press corps ready to call the primary and go home after a couple of state contests and the Sanders supporters slandering Warren because she doesn't just pack up and go home, it's a miracle we've made it all the way to Super Tuesday. And as far as foresight goes, queuing up an adversary to blame if your guy doesn't make it isn't the best in political planning. In case he does win, you all might need some Warren supporters on your team. How much enthusiasm do you think we'll have after you've tried to drive our candidate out of the race. As a reminder, in 2016 Bernie stayed in until the last possible moment. Looks bad that you're now holding others to a different standard.
6
I see Elizabeth Warren as the perfect candidate and this may be her perfect moment to coalesce most voters. She is both progressive (Sanders supporters) and pragmatic (Biden supporters). That she happens to be a whole lot more than that is a gift to democracy.
91
The move that sealed her fate: free college. By the time you get to college, you've already passed hundreds of students in high school. And the gap will grow from there, both in terms of income and job satisfaction. The answer is not free college or free student loans. The answer is universal pre-K, better funding for public schools and improved college funding so that tuition can be affordable. That's progressive. Free college for all is regressive. It involves paying the haves -- those who do well in high school and have strong families who push them -- with funds from the have-not taxpayers.
6
Universal pre-K has been part of her platform from day one. Free college has certainly not „done in“ Bernie.
And the idea that concrete policy proposals at this level of granularity are in any way contributing to candidates’ rise or fall assumes that the voters care enough. I sure wish it were so, because she would have kept her top spot and would be well on her way to put a torch to Trump like she did to Bloomberg.
12
@bud. I can tell you have never thought further than the circle just around yourself. And that is the surest way to miss out on so many things.
6
I am the demographic supposedly enchanted by Warren. If she were the nominee I would vote for her with no reservations. But I see her as fundamentally dishonest.
All of her "plans" are dependent upon raising enormous amounts of revenue via a wealth tax that is 1) never going to pass Congress; 2) would be struck down by the Supreme Court; 3) has been repealed by almost every other country as unworkable; and 4) would never raise as much money as promised but have perverse, disruptive effects on the economy. There are other, much less politically divisive and effective ways of raising revenue from the wealthy for redistribution, which I support. Her unwillingness to accede to reality on these points thoroughly discredited all her "plans" for me.
6
@MM She's the only candidate that is calling to end the filibuster. That's the only way ANY democratic plan is going to get through the Senate if McConnell is still in charge.
10
@Brandon
But if McConnell is in charge, you're never going to eliminate the filibuster. Warren's "plans" show that there is a world of difference between legislating, and typing.
1
@Brandon Even without a filibuster, there’s no reason to think that a wealth tax doomed to be struck down by the Supreme Court would get through Congress. The wealth tax was just pandering.
Sanders tells everybody that they'll get a pony. Trump promises unicorns to his base. Warren, despite being reasonable on many issues, has seriously floated plans that would involve killing the golden goose (breaking up amazon and google).
1
@Swift those golden gooses pay virtually no taxes: where's the gold?
7
What killed her campaign was attacking Bernie Sander, and refusing his handshake. Warren was the alternative on the left, albeit a "progressive", not a democratic socialist. She does not understand it's not about a lot of plans, it's about ideology. Had she known, she would have stressed her background and addressed the working class from where she came. Bernie is the real thing; Warren at best is a wannabe social democrat.
10
Yeah, god forbid an intellectual have the gall to run for president. What we need is more Bush Jrs. and Trumps. Arghh.
75
@bud
Attending an Ivy League school doesn't necessarily mean you got an education.
11
@bud It isn't that hard to get into an Ivy League school as a legacy. Surely you're not suggesting that Bush Jr. and Trump are intellectuals.
4
@bud Check it: she was educated at the University of Houston and got her law degree from Rutgers Law School. Those sound like ivy league schools to you?
1
Warren will not win any considerable amount of delegates. She needs to drop out and endorse Bernie if she actually cares about progressive policies.
10
@Mike
"number" of delegates.
1
I live in California and voted for Warren last week via mail. I identify with her and admire her tenacity and intellect. I feel like she would be the one to heal the country. But, with the shuffling of candidates in the last few days, I wish I had held off on voting until today. I feel like I wasted my vote. All that matters is beating Trump and I don’t think Sanders has a chance of that. I would have begrudgingly voted for Biden if I went to the polls today.
4
Elizabeth Warren is authentic and stays true to who she really is which is a fighter who stands up for her convictions which is to help the middle class and the poor. She can go toe to toe with Trump and with her progressive policies can make this country great again for all.
75
@MSS All true, but first she has to win both the nomination then the general election. If she and her campaign can discover what she’s doing wrong, keeping her from catching fire, they need to change that. Like yesterday.
American politics favors white men over women or people of color. Warren is smart, has a plan, is more of an activist than a politician but Americans love to look for the flaws in every women to discredit them. She stood up the big banks, she is a fierce champion of consumer rights, she comes from a humble upbringing, was a young mother, worked all her way to Harvard and to the Senate. Yet, this is still not enough for Americans to believe in her. They love to rally behind an older white man who promises the starts and the moon, free healthcare, free tuition without telling these same voters how is he going to pay for it? Populist right gave us DJT, I am afraid the populist left will give us another extreme President.
47
@ALN A woman handily won the last democratic primary, and won the popular vote. Before that, Americans gladly voted for a black man twice over. Your comment reflects how you want to view Americans, but not as they actually are.
2
@Gabe , a biracial man/black man winning the Presidency in over 200 years is hardly anything we should be proud of. What good does a popular vote do when the power of electing the President still lies in the hands of the electoral college who has yet to vote for a woman?
4
The field and the smoke is clearing and she has emerged as my choice. She is passionate but not shrill and has a long record in congress as an actively involved representative of the people who elected her as well as many of the rest of us. As a person who gets things done she outshines Sanders and Biden handily.
124
I wish Warren would have made a better showing so far (late morn on Super Tuesday as I write), but I imagine that Bernie's rough-edged presentation and deeper history rings as more attractive to the progressive wing. Certainly Warren did herself no favors by being so obviously evasive with regard to paying for her health plan in the first Dem debate.
3
A “sinecure” in the senate? Really? A position in the US Senate is no easy ride, especially if you’re trying to drag your party back to its conscience.
36
@Judith Nelson Agreed! I thought that was a pretty offensive word choice!
8
Thank you!
I adore Elizabeth Warren. I truly believe that she could be one of the best Presidents in the history of the country. She is another example of a brilliant, talented woman who is being faulted for being too wonky and intellectual. Part of what really gets me about this article is that I felt like there have been a LOT of opportunities to see and hear Warren's biography. In fact, a comment on another article was that the person was tired of hearing her stories about growing up! People who have been able to attend her rallies gush on and on about how warm and human she is. To the person who said "It's the plans that did her in," I find that sickening. I guess you are just fine with having a stupid president? And have you actually READ her plans? They are astoundingly well-thought out, and are evidence of the mind of a person who really and truly cares about changing the lives of American citizens. Her message has gotten lost in the manic horserace mentality promoted by the media, and an insane caucus/primary system where what happens in four states requires that candidates either drop out or be vilified. I am heartsick. I would love to see Elizabeth Warren hit it out of the ballpark today.
429
@Kathi J You’ve got to campaign to the electorate you’ve got. Wishing things were different doesn’t win elections.
1
@Frank Campaign to a sexist electorate?
6
Exactly what is wrong with having an intelligent and amiable president? Too many Americans want a president who is like them - loud, rude, rather dumb but very opinionated. It’s no wonder we end up with the leaders we do.
165
Adults plan. American's rise is a history of practical plans addressing real problems with solutions, tested then revised and replicated.
We have become a nation of fantasy addicts recoiling at reality. That is why Warren's campaign did not take off. Here in MA locals rail all day about mass media that they actually do not read, science they disbelieve but do not consult, and total lack of financial comprehension.
467
More likely, a total lack of financial compensation, for their lifetime of hard work, as wages remain flat for 40 years and non wage workers clean up at the trough.
21
@poslug - C'mon people, men. Support Warren, she's
the smartest one of all. Consumers ALL. She wants
to protect you from the Robber Barons (and the
Robber Barons will get you.) She's upbeat and has
a positive demeanor, not a mean word. Bloomberg,
YOU should be contributing to her campaign. I proudly
send contributions.
13
@poslug
I take it that you support Warren, as she thought we were smart enough to recognize we need a whole ton of plans to get out of the mess we're in.
We let Elizabeth Warren down and I am deeply disappointed in America. Again.
Warren is by a mile the most qualified candidate, and I have watched her campaign be sidelined, ignored and erased almost from Day One. The punditocracy is wayyyy to influential in America, and the electoral campaigns absurdly long.
I also fault Bernie for singlehandedly preventing the two best female Presidential candidates in my lifetime from achieving the presidency. In both cases, he has made specific and unnecessary choices that harmed them. He stayed in much too long in 2016, and he should have either not run when he knew Warren and Harris were running this time. After his heart attack, he should have stepped down and thrown his full support to Warren.
America has become a terribly disappointing, missed opportunity of a country.
19
Great point. I do think if she made ads telling her compelling story of living the American Dream she would resonate with a broader group of voters. It was former Governor Deval Patrick’s story that vaulted him to the Governorship. People relate to good stories. I wish she had done that before Super Tuesday since I consider her biography and her plans to both be compelling reasons to vote for her. She really gets it because she has lived it.
What an incredible first time national campaign she is running. I hope she continues to shape the narrative and many of her plans get implemented.
20
I am sorry. I like Warren, I really do. She is a fantastic progressive and a great Senator. But a presidential vote for her is now a presidential vote for Biden. A repeat of 2016. It's simple.
4
I really take strong issue with these constant stories that identify candidate (and party) supporters based on race, education and gender. I am white and college educated and had no silver spoon in my youth. And I don't and wouldn't support Elizabeth Warren because of some of her policies? And does anybody really care about her log cabin story even if she didn't end up in the Ivy League? I think not which calls into question at least one part of her judgement since she thinks it helpful to kick off her rally with this yarn. Then we are told about Joe Biden's popularity among black voters, and Bernie's "winning over" the working class. And let's not forget now that Bernie has a shot at the Latino voters out west. I wonder sometimes if these suggestions don't cause some to align according to what they hear about others. I also wonder if others, like me, resent this almost suggestion as to where they fit in the political spectrum.
4
Impressed with her detailed plans, she was my first choice at the beginning. She lost me with when she started the attacks on Buttigieg for meeting with donors at a wine tasting and then the relentless attacks on Bloomberg that set the tone for the Nevada debate. It's as though she is trying to show that she can play the role of attack dog so she can campaign as VP.
The most interesting thing about her attacks on Bloomberg is that she has been much more successful than she has been when attacking Trump. Bloomberg, in my opinion, has been uniquely successful in attacking Trump.
2
@Monsignor Juan
As a Warren supporter, I don't mind that she went after Bloomberg; that's what a spirited contest is about.
I did mind, however, that when she did it, he rolled over and played dead. He needed to defend himself, robustly. And no, I wouldn't have interpreted that as "mansplaining" or bullying a woman. I would have interpreted that as a candidate who was prepared, a candidate with a spine.
Same as when Harris pulled that stunt on Biden in the first debate. Similarly, I like Harris more than Biden, but his failure to defend himself was pitiful. That moment alone sealed my fears of having Biden as our nominee.
2
You aren't interested in Elizabeth Warren's candidacy. You want to do anything you can to stop Bernie Sanders bringing healthcare, housing & economic justice to all Americans , not to mention environmental justice to the Earth & environment secuirity for our children & our grandchildren. You, I, Elizabeth Warren & her super-PAC no she can't win because progressives have consolidated behind Bernie Sanders & Warren has not won the support of the working class. You want to stop progress in the name of your own narrow economic, social & political interests.
11
Hoping for a big boost for Warren this Super Tuesday. If not, I don't have a lot of hope for the future of America.
50
Warren tells her background story at literally every debate and broadcasted town hall. The mainstream media never cared to highlight this because it’s so much more familiar and easier to slot her into a woman with a plan/women nag us with plans double-bind. She reminds us that we need to do better by simply showing us what she sees and offering us ways to improve our lives. This taps two contrarian instincts on American public life: hatred of women who see problems and ways out—if SHE is behind this SHE is telling me I’m wrong about what I’ve done so SHE is the worst and the fetishization of an instinct-based, emotionally-driven sense that education is elitist rather than the path to stability. It’s God-awful rich that the Times runs a story about this when it’s Ed staff knows full well that the media creates and perpetuates narratives. Aunt Betsy was always available, it’s just easier and more conducive to the anti-intellectual American worldview, perpetuated by media conglomerates who make their money by embedding news events into familiar narrative structures and impulses. She was cast has Harvard Law first, so Aunt Betsy could never live until the same media apparatus decided she could not win the nomination.
105
@Amy thank you for this. Excellent. "Embedding news events into familiar narrative structures and impulses" is failing us. Is this in fact perpetuated by media conglomerates or is more of a fundamental lack of understanding? How do reporters and editors need to understand their beats/the world/context? How do journalists best cover the story, do the public service, when one team is playing checkers and the other is burning down the house? Jay Rosen does some good work on this: http://pressthink.org/
12
@Amy Brillant, thank you.
7
@Amy
You are right on the money, this is a wonderful analysis.
What I remember is Warren launching her campaign with a biographical video. Her dad's heart attack, her mom's job at Sears, her young marriage, the divorce, children while in law school.
At some point the reporters on the campaign trail lost interest in her. Do women over 50 remind reporters of their mothers, or something? Too unhip to get excited about?
9
It may be too soon to write Sen. Warren's political obituary. She is still a force in progressive politics, and the only candidate who might be able to galvanize both the warring factions in the party. Alas, she does seem to have suffered the fate so often allotted to the smartest person in the room. I don't understand, nor do i have much respect for, the American antipathy for intellect, while at the same time bemoaning the downward slide of education. I'm sure if she were a famous athlete, she would have excited more support, even though giving her no qualifications for office.
Perversity, Paradox, Persistence.
187
No, dear reader, it was not her, “smartest person in the room”aura,that may have done her in, see: Buttigieg, Pete, admired by all wine cave denizens and their hangers on, of baby boom vintage.
Why, my own much loved, old, wealthy uncle who has a small vineyard in Northern California and his retired kindergarten teacher wife, loved Buttigieg.
It’s like someone took all the boomers hopes and dreams for what their children should be and ground it all together and gently ladled it, into and through a Harvard/McKinsey sous-vide kitchen appliance and out popped Buttigieg.
Odd, how his articulate, polished intelligence was lauded by this and every other paper- but Warren is a wonky old woman here to lecture and too fond of plans. Hmm...
13
As a big time Warren supporter, today is make or break for me. Our primaries are on the 24th, and I really, really want to vote for her. (And yes, I'm the demographic that's cited in the article.) If there's a viable path after today, I will proudly cast my vote for Elizabeth Warren. But if the numbers aren't realistically there, I'm going with Bernie. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and see the progressive vote split. At the end of the day, it's the actual policy that matters. But in my heart, I'm still hoping for a miracle today...
36
@M I am here in Boston and voted earlier this week for Elizabeth. Most of my friends have too. I am hoping that people see her for the smart, progressive voice that she is and give her a nod. I will support who ever is the nominee, but if it is Bernie or Biden I will do it reluctantly. I honestly think that Elizabeth has the best chance to unite the party and the country when she is president.
29
@M - "At the end of the day, it's the actual policy that matters."
Supporting the point that we all have such different viewpoints - I don't think policy matters much at all. It is the person and their integrity, core values, support of democratic institutions that matter the most in being a great leader.
All of the candidates have some variation of policies we like.
2
@M When Bernie stayed in the race in 2016, even after he was clearing losing to Clinton, he was building leverage. Leverage over the platform and the party, and he is still benefitting from that leverage. I say, let's give Warren the same leverage this time: I'm with her as long as she's still standing-- I trust her to fight for me and all of us in ways we need. Why are people ignoring this? Bernie got a lot from staying in, why shouldn't Warren (who has also done a lot for other Democrats, and always paid her dues-- including supporting HRC when that seemed the best way for her to build some leverage). This is how it works.
1
Well, her demographic will be surprised when over the course of the next few years it’s revealed she made comments about wanting to win by superdelegate convention as opposed to most votes and that she accepted dark money which will give her just enough money to stay in the race until the convention.
3
Elizabeth Warren makes a mistake, the same one Hillary made, they are both bright people, but like Adlai Stevenson in the past, they don't realize everyone is not like them. Trump is a two bit carnival barker with the intellect of a street hustler, but he is driven by emotion ( mostly anger and hate and feeling like he has been snubbed his due), and he instinctively knows many people are, too.
Warren could tell her story, that unlike Trump she grew up on the fringes of the middle class at a time when the middle class supposedly was doing well and even back then how fragile it was, she understands in this time of globalization and corporate greed it is much, much worse, and appeal to their emotions, that she knows and cares, unlike a kid who grew up filthy rich and didn't know what it was to struggle, didn't care one bit about that.
Instead though we get Professor Warren, talking about 60 point plans and economic theory that will 'transform their world'. The problem is that the people she is trying to reach have heard that song and dance, the centrist Clintonites promising Nafta and trade would "give them better jobs, not worse', how "globalized" economics was a win win, they havve heard theory and talking points, that in the end ended up hurting them, let alone helping them.
When Tip O'Neil said all politics is local, one of the things he meant, coming out of the old political machine school, was that local politicians know how to appeal to emotions.
6
Perhaps the role of the voter is to rise above their ‘emotions’ when evaluating candidates.
Emotions have their place, but voters appear to react viscerally to certain candidates and when they either choose not to check that reaction against a reality or simply don’t have the skills to do so, we get Trump.
13
@Lissa And that''s why we must realize that
emotional is the strongest type of appeal to
voters.Emotional appeal is what elected Trump,
even though much of it was based on lies.
3
Any Dem who actually wants to beat Trump more than anything else simply must face the fact that Bernie has been by far the strongest candidate with the working class vote on which the entire election will turn in the Rust Belt. Bernie beat Trump in the Rust Belt exit polls of 2016, and thus would have been president today. Forget the college-educated suburban middle class that might prefer Warren. They are overwhelmingly outnumbered in the Rust Belt by the working class. And the candidate the working class has seen as their true champion through two election cycles is, quite rightly, Bernie Sanders, not another candidate of the neoliberal Wall St. elite that has run the Democratic Party for the rich ever since 1992. That's why the Rust Belt hated Hillary so very much.
13
@Fred White "They are overwhelmingly outnumbered in the Rust Belt by the working class." Actually, no. Plus, a recent well researched study shows that Bernie's path to the Presidency requires massive, unprecedented turn out by younger voters because he, according to polls, will drive away "Rust Belt" voters, not attract them.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/could-youth-vote-offset-bernies-weaknesses-in-november.html
7
@Fred White
This is such fantasy. Bernie would expand the map but not in the ways Democrats hope- although at least CT would finally see some campaigning!
The hemorrhaging of the suburban vote would be massive. When we’re already saving for college, have healthcare, already pay high taxes, and our kids are through daycare and pre K, none of the benefits will be seen by us. But I’m sure the taxes will fall heavily on us in the name of some kind of misguided notion of fairness.
5
@Fred White You clearly don't know much about Warren. She is the opposite of a "neoliberal Wall St. elite."
Taking on Wall St. is what she's been doing for decades; it's her area of expertise. That's her signature issue based on knowledge of the economy and how Wall St. has destroyed the middle class. Watch her ream them in Senate hearings; they hate her.
It's weird that you don't know this, yet feel justified in criticizing her . . .
7
The two paths to the nomination lie as either a moderate or a populist. Warren is too far left to win as a moderate. And she is at a severe disadvantage as a populist because many of her ideas can’t be contained within 280 characters. Unfortunately Ms. Warren is a victim of timing and circumstance.
5
Yes! Who would want a professor who’s studied and written several books about the undoing of the American middle class?!
Americans just want to know you’d have a beer with them.
157
@Lissa
Touche`!
7
@Lissa
Americans are some of the most under educated and provincial people on this planet. They rarely have the chops to make big decisions about things in their best interest.
11
@Lissa Yet the Donald is a teetotaller.
1
"Of course, the days before a make-or-break moment lend themselves to 2020 hindsight, and it’s possible that a “Betsy from Oklahoma”-heavy campaign would have backfired, with rivals grumbling about authenticity."
Exactly. Every time Warren would mention her upbringing and bring out the folksy anecdote I'd role my eyes. Who cares? We're not electing her for her tough childhood but for her smarts and experience.
Her focus on that, whatever it was, made me think she was listening to much to her "handlers" and not being herself.
9
I am a big Warren supporter and this article made me wistful. Unfortunately I am precisely in the demographic which she has appealed to. I really wish this article was running somewhere besides the NYT.
126
Eizabeth Warren is intelligent, competent, and compassionate. She knows what the root causes to our problems are, has a plan to fix them, and has the grit to see her plan through. I hope voters will see her for who she truly is and will give her a chance today.
388
“Now, as voters head to the polls on Super Tuesday, Ms. Warren’s campaign has all but admitted her pathway to winning the Democratic nomination outright has vanished.”
A SuperPac called Persist has just gotten behind Warren with $12 million - what Oligarchs or Republicans are behind this dark money group - are they foreign wanting to stir up chaos? If it goes to the Super Delegates in the second round to pick a candidate that is not the one with the most votes - like in a democracy - then it is the end of the Democratic Party.
Warren voted for Reagan and Nixon as a Republican. Where was she during the civil rights movement. As a bankruptcy lawyer she worked for DOW Chemical against breast implant victims. I am glad the she has taken on many of Bernies plans - so now is the time to throw her support behind him if she really believes in what she says. Bernie is the only one that can beat Trump.
21
@steve I'm a Bernie supporter. That's not how you win over Warren supporters. She is a great progressive and fantastic politician. Her experiences in dealing with greed during the financial crisis are unrivaled. Her flip flop on super pacs is troubling and sure she used to be a Republican, but let's focus on how we can bring more people into our movement and not alienate them. Otherwise, Biden will be the nominee and Trump will have another 4 years.
29
@steve
Wow, someone who thinks through their positions and then changes their mind when new information is available! We sure wouldn't want anyone like that in charge of the country!
71
@steve
"Where was she during the civil rights movement."
She was in middle and high school in Oklahoma, doing her homework and waiting tables after school and on weekends. Then she went to college for two years, and then she dropped out and got married, and two years later she got married.
In other words, she was busy.
35
i’m the demographic! i love elizabeth warren. she is the smartest person in the room. i voted for her, and i wish her luck. we have a messed up system that has trump being perceived as the savior of the every day person, when warren has and will support and fight for them.
237
@Jo De Mayor Pete was likely the smartest person in the room and he got knocked out, too. Bill Clinton and Obama may not be quite as smart intellectually, but they both had Emotional Quotients that were off the charts. I don't see that in Warren or Buttigieg for that matter.
Harris seemed the most gifted that way to me, but apparently ran a terrible campaign.
1
@Jo De I am NOT the demographic, and I'm still voting for her! Elizabeth Warren was the one fighting for average Americans when she headed up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I've watched her in the debates, on Comedy Central and the Tonight Show. She's a real person and has such great insight into how to correct this ship we're all sailing on... Go Elizabeth!
5
Professor Warren from Harvard is exactly how she was portrayed, which fair or not, is her undoing. Does she have a commanding grip on facts? Yes. Is she sufficiently organized? Yes. Would she staff her departments with non grifting people? Yes. I would love to see that level of competency in the White house. Unfortunately, too many people feel like they are being lectured to
when she speaks, the professor at the lectern. She sways a lot of people, but turns off many others.
6
@Steve we get what we deserve, the lowest common denominator. this country is a disaster.
8
@Steve
"She sways a lot of people, but turns off many others."
And you can say exactly this about Bernie, lecturing, hectoring, pointing his finger at people from the podium.
4
I hope she pulls a lot of votes today and reads this article. She really gets people like me, who are like her - working class to middle class, self-funded education, and now in the white collar world running my own sole prop business. That inspires me just as much as her "plan for that!"
169
I went into the primary season seeing pros and cons of all the possible nominees, so I'm not anyone's die-hard fan. But the idea that a candidate having a solid plan to accomplish their goals is unappealing and "what did them in" is so unutterably depressing. If we deserve a democratic system, that should be any candidate's biggest asset.
284
@Claudia The fact that she had plans is not what did her in - it's that those plans prized technocratic fixes that do not address the root cause of problems in this country.
2
@Kevin Burke and what 'root cause' does Bernie address? That money is finite?
10
@Kevin Burke so vague unworkable plans are better? That makes no sense.
while she almost lost my vote by emphasizing the filibuster as how she differs from Bernie, the superior quality of her plans overall and the fact that she is likelier to make real progress made her the better choice for me and those I know.
20
Elizabeth Warren is the best candidate, it’s early morning Super Tuesday — Come on, America, give us a miracle and vote for Elizabeth Warren!
352
I'm from MA and had no idea Senator Warren had a background like this. I'm baffled as to why they aren't telling this story on the airwaves. To me this lends an authenticity to her many plans: I've been there, I learned from experience, and now I want to help others.
118
@Lindsey Thatis a good argument in support of a shorter primary to help focus attention. The whole process goes on so long that information that was front and center early on gets lost or diluted.
17
Elizabeth Warren is the opposite of a populist. She reads, works hard, prepares for debates and makes realistic plans.
If anything, she leans technocratic.
Populism is telling people what they want to hear, not a standard dismissal for any proposal that's more than a standard deviation away from the status quo.
142
@Liz
The trouble with the word "populist" is that nobody has the slightest idea what it is supposed to mean. It gets used equally often for demagogues like Trump and for genuine supporters of ordinary working families like Warren and Sanders -- who, themselves, are very different in the way they envision governing.
5
Despite everything this piece says about Warren she came off as Hillary Clinton without the charm. Not an easy task. She lectures people instead of connecting with them. And her seeming to have a problem with telling the truth on multiple issues sealed her fate.
24
@Todd: Wow, I have a totally different take on her - authentic, strong, intelligent and articulate with workable plans to deal with our nation's most difficult issues and the moral high ground as well. Oh yeah, and the ability to get things done - CFPB anyone?
249
@Todd Why do men feel that smart women are "lecturing" them? You don't think bernie is?
20
@Todd HRC without the charm? Lecturing? Huh?
If any system and electorate needs a good lecture, it's ours and us. College, childcare, home ownership, medical treatment isn't becoming more attainable and accessible. While I find Warren plenty charming, I wonder about the wisdom of using charm as a metric by which to measure the candidate best poised to move our democracy forward.
She hasn't hidden any of her sources of funding, her taxes are on full view, her plans right there for your dissection. What are the non-truths you are alluding to, I wonder? Is it possible that Warren is held to higher standard because, in general, women are held to higher standards than are men?
7
She should have hammered home her wealth tax — and pledged to rebate it to poor and middle class class Americans, rather than filtering it through a lot of smarty pants programs.
Wealthy donors know what they’re buying when they contribute to a Trump or Biden. Progressives need to be equally clear.
3
The electorate is ever changing and dynamic, but her failure to rise in the polls can at least be attributed to one reason that continues to be ignored: the hiring of former Harris and Clinton staffers who are failures at everything they do except getting paid for losing elections, being inept, and having quite possibly the worst political instincts in a generation.
17
@Kevin Burke
Warren did not fail to rise, she sank.
Warren was top of the polls six months ago, she let them slip away. Look at the polls; her trying to hang sexist remarks on Bernie saw a precipitous favorability decline right after.
6
@Clotario her sinking coincided directly to hiring those former staffers. it's connected.
1
I am a Sanders supporter but could have supported Warren except for two things.
First, for much of her adult life, and that includes during the Nixon and Reagan presidencies, she was a libertarian Republican. I'm just a little younger than she is and I would be distrustful of anybody who didn't see anything wrong with their policies at the time of their administrations.
Second, she said that she never believed her claiming to be Native American would be helpful to her career. By saying that I felt that either she thought I was too stupid to know that wasn't true or, if she truly believed that, then she was too divorced from reality to be president.
And yes I know of those reports that say it didn't help her career. My response is tell me how many Rutgers Law School graduates have been made professor at Harvard Law in the last 50 years other than Warren.
If she had come out and said that she knew it would help her career, I would have trusted her much more.
21
You know she was a Penn Law professor before going to Harvard right? Have you considered that maybe she was hired by Harvard because she’s very smart and an expert of the law in the field she specializes in?
20
@Steve
Warren became the expert in the country on bankruptcy law and published on this topic.
That's who gets hired at Harvard Law, people who have produced outstanding academic results. She's also a great and inspiring teacher.
Why don't you give her credit for the things she achieved?
14
@Steve Read the Boston Globe's in-depth work on this subject. Top-notch investigative journalism---interviews, documents----they don't go easy on her but found NO evidence that her belief in her family's stories of their heritage advanced her career in any way. Sept. 2018, you can find it on line. It's long, but take the time to read it.
Facts are more powerful than your opinion based on nothing.
You might "know of these reports," but take the time to read one:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/09/01/did-claiming-native-american-heritage-actually-help-elizabeth-warren-get-ahead-but-complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html
13
Just goes to show that "educated" voters are as sloppy in their choices as supposed "uneducated" voters. Neither group takes the time to look at the candidates actual history, rather than listen to their rhetoric.
4
It's the plans that did her in.
2
@Chris Martin: I know, God forbid, she actually showed how she can things done while other candidates make pie in the sky promises without any concrete plans to get them done. SMH.
84
@Chris Martin
They are sort of contrived, campaign devices. She acts as if THESE plans would be the ones that legislators would see. As I understand the process, there will be many iterations of plans generated by legions of legislators, aides, officials, etc. before congress sees any of it. These are more like highly-conditional feasibility proposals.... Any real plans will depend heavily on public support, available revenues, trade-offs, etc., the stuff that Bernie Sanders or a leader like him could consolidate support for.
1