The Field: What Happened to Elizabeth Warren?

She had a plan for everything except for a plausible explanation to pay for her signature Medicare for All plan that got her into first place. She looked unprepared and stunned that she was even asked about it and initially fabricated a magical cost cut of $10 trillion out of thin air. When that didn’t fly she capitulated and surrendered by deciding that it wasn’t that important after all could wait a few years. Not very strong leadership and not very smart. No wonder her campaign collapsed.

I appreciate Amstead's reporting regarding Elizabeth Warren supporter/s. I feel there has been a prescriptive missing from the shows as it pertains to voting and this election cycle. I wish that I could have heard BLACK voters point of view prior to Super Tuesday or even after. There is more than a few of us (black voters) who have/had a confounding point of view on the candidates who were in the race and the final two vying for the Democratic nomination. I hope that the Daily will consider speaking to Black voters especially because our demographics is wide ranging.

This podcast was a disappointment and I would ask the NYT to re-consider putting it in the same space as The Daily, which is almost always a great pleasure and enlightening. Part way throught this podcast I had to look again to see if I had read the title correctly: "The Field: What Happened to Elizabeth Warren?" A more fitting title for the podcast content would have been "The Field: Did Elizabeth Warren Lose Because She Is A Woman?" The actual podcast title posed a very interesting question. The podcast itself didn't answer it or even appear to try. Gender bias is certainly worth consideration, but there are several other likely significant (perhaps primary) reasons that were mentioned in passing or not at all. For example, Warren supported Medicare for All and argued in late 2019 that people should think and go big when they vote. Then, when failing to bump Sanders out of that lane, she tried to shift (muddling her message) into the well-occupied moderate lane a few weeks ago claiming among other things to be the "unifying" candidate. I don't blame her for trying to shift, but the damage had been done. As Sanders, a white male, is also finding during the past week, his Medicare for All and more liberal message, is not carrying the day with Democrats. Hats off to the interviewed campaign staffer and Elizabeth Warren herself (in her comments last week) for not simply claiming gender bias to have been the primary reason the campaign didn't make it.

Warren happened to Warren... her beliefs were so unrealistic.. I wanted to give her a chance but when she savagely attacked Michael Bloomberg at the beginning of the last debate is when she lost any chance with me. I wonder if she turned others off by that performance as well. She sounded like a female version of Donald Trump. After that she seemed to lose any support she might have had. If she thought that was the way to win people over that shows how out of touch with her party she is.. We don't need her meanness dividing us further. I for one am glad she is out of the race.

While I appreciate Astead's reporting here I think he made an interesting point around the 33:13 mark; about how being a male reporter hindered his ability to draw out honest answers about sexism from the women he was interviewing. I think this report should have been done by a women, not because Astead did a bad job, but because it's easier to talk about and explain your experiences with someone who shares them. I think it can be difficult to explain, even to the most well meaning and open minded man, the nuances of day to day sexism, simply because some things must be experienced to be understood fully.

What happened to Elizabeth Warren? She was sandbagged by the Biden, the DNC and the media. Look at how many people went on the NYT forums and said that they were going to vote for Warren, but the media said she was doing badly, so they voted for Biden? She held the most promise for this country and now we are stuck with a choice between Biden and Trump--broken down, old, white men who represent status quo, corruption and Main Street. Of course, good ole Bernie is still in it, but the DNC and party elders have been making their pressuring telephone calls to turn every delegate into a Biden delegate. The problem is Biden can't win against Trump. The DNC has infuriated and sidelines too many voices and voters.

The fact that Warren campaigned on all the same issues as Bernie but did not see fit to endorse him tells me all I ever need to know about her and her so-called "plans". As far as I can see, she her current "plan" is to snag a post in a Biden administration. To those of us who are truly committed to a social democratic program of change, her feckless conduct means that the things she claimed to support are further away than ever. For me and other members of my family, we will never vote for a "moderate" Republican running as a Democrat again. Obama almost destroyed the party by decimating it at the state level. And what did he have to show for all his eloquence? A health care bill so overly complex that it now insures fewer people than it did at the start. It never helped many poor black people in southern states whose governors and legislatures refused to accept the extra Medicaid spending. And yet these are the people flocking to Biden. I simply don't get it. Biden supported NAFTA, rushed us into the Iraq war, humiliated Anita Hill, helped Obama support big banks over homeowners during the housing debacle in the financial crash, and lied numerous times about his record and activities. This is to be our standard bearer in the 2020 election? This tired old pol without an idea in his head or a policy in his portfolio. What a humiliating response to Trump these corporate Dems have produced.

I could not get behind Warren. I did not like her whiny voice or manner. Given she is far better than trump but still annoying and her plans too radical given the state of the US at this time. The US isn't served well lurching from the far-right to far-left, it would be better served getting back to the Obama middle to show how out of touch the far-right is. Right the ship, get back on track then get the $1T deficit spending under control than enact universal health\dental-care for all citizens. Yes dental, the UK's NHS has dental, ask any doctor the rule of thumb is "the mouth is the gateway to your health". You're going to get nothing done until you replace many terrible Senators and Congresspeople.

My wife and I were Warren supporters. She promised a new age in this country and Biden won’t do that. Beating Trump is the most important thing but liberals need to vote for 99% of the Democrats on the ballot. Then fight for change.

Now's the time to go beyond both "identity politics" and "electability". The best candidates are human beings espousing policies good for the planet as a whole. Anyone less is bound to disappoint...

I would like to thank Astead W. Herndon for his reporting of the Warren campaign. As a Warren supporter, I was often frustrated by the coverage she received, which, I thought, generally tended to further the self-perpetuating and fundamentally anti-democratic notion of "electability." Our electoral system simply cannot function if our votes do not reflect our actual individual preferences, but reflect instead our projections of our neighbors' preferences. I really blame the media, unfortunately including much work done by the Times, for this undermining of democracy. However, Mr. Herndon's work on the Warren campaign was a beacon of clarity and fairness in this morass. I will miss his work almost as much as I miss the Warren campaign, and I look forward to his next assignment.

I disagree with the view of this podcast - and think it is too easy to say that Warren is out of the presidential race because she is a female. Elections are all about timing -- she was winning for a while. It is better to ask, why voters felt they had to abandon their original candidate and pick either progressive or centrist. If we had ranked system voting (like Ireland / Malta), this would not be the case, and many of us would see our second or third favorite candidate elected. However, we would still feel we had some say because we would be able to vote for several candidates.

Warren’s initial rise was due to calling a rigged system where those with money are the ones the rule our politics and offering a legislative fix which would bring more transparency to the system. With the increased costs of elections, politicians and corporate media gets their trickle down effect. She posed an existential threat to our current politics with those who benefit from it would do anything to defeat her. Bernie believing likewise could eventually be defeated because of the bogie word of socialism used effectively since Reagan. With her supporters being the more educated, the young and women, corporate democrats decided to fund Klobuchar and Buttigieg effectively poaching off some of her supporters. Having so many plans to fix our many problems also left her exposed to the minutia her plans such as paying for Medicare for all, unlike Bernie’s. Perhaps her biggest mistake was not to tie in this rigged system with why when the majority of us are for universal healthcare, gun control, global warming, etc., the revolving door of politicians and lobbyists means nothing gets done. She often times appearing too smart for her own good by having a plan for everything. She didn’t point out to the GOP’s Trump's impeachment acquittal as a payback for tax cuts, deregulation, corporate welfare etc. Corporate democrats have won, our plutocracy will continue, any marginal change by Biden if any at all will continue to disenfranchise voters under 45 who see no hope.

She's not a real progressive. She was a Republican until 1990s. Why should I vote for her when Bernie has been preaching this same message since the 80s?

Thank you for creating this episode. After seeing a woman win the democratic nomination in 2016 I’m surprised to see a woman fall so far behind in the primary. Especially such a competent, likable woman. My thought is that either voters are afraid to pitch a woman against DT a second time or that there is someone behind the scenes (Russia?) influencing the primary results. I actually hope it’s the first option, because- as scary as it is - the second option is terrifying

If someone of color loses, people pull out the race card; if a woman loses, it's the gender card. It's an easy excuse to make and there are always those eager to use it. Elizabeth Warren was ahead in the polls back in the October and November. What happened? Where were all the misogynists back then? A better answer explaining her loss of popularity may reside in the personal attacks she began to make towards others, especially Mike Bloomberg. Up until then she had generally refrained from attacking others. I admired this "high road" approach and was glad to see her focusing on her detailed plans to make things better rather than to attack others all vying for the same nomination. Her refusal to shake Sanders' hand and accusing him of lying about her on "national tv" was uncalled for despite the statement's possible veracity and she would have done better to have kept her emotions in check. She was in many ways the best qualified of all the candidates and it will be some time before we all move on to other topics besides pondering about why she lost. The fact that she is a woman probably did deter a few voters, but it is doubtful that it was instrumental to her demise.

It continues to sadden me that smart, accomplished women who have overachieved in their lives were challenged by Bernie Sanders, who is pales in comparison in every way but one.

This is the second straight intellectually lazy Tuesday morning podcast The Daily has done. If a typical college student was told to write a paper on why Elizabeth Warren didn't do better and they turned in the "It was purely sexism and if her staffers don't agree then they must be unaware" theme of this podcast, they would earn a C for such a shallow analysis with little evidence to back it up. Clearly gender played an important role, but there were other important factors as well, which I would love to learn more about, but I am learning not to turn to The Daily for critical analysis. Kudos to Warren's staffer who didn't fall into the trap of solely blaming sexism for the failed campaign. If Sanders doesn't get the nomination, is anti-semitism the sole reason? I loathed the idea of voting for Hillary in 2016 and was told I must be misogynistic, as if there were no valid reasons for not supporting her. Her mediocre, and overly-hawkish record as senator and Secretary of State, her lack of transparency regarding her dealings with Wall Street, and her support of her husband's disastrous policies, were dismissed. They were then surprised when I told them the person I would most fervently support for president was actually a woman who was not running, Warren. The just-so, Gladwellian explanations of complex outcomes make for nice, neat narratives, but their reductionistic oversimplification leads to lack of understanding and continuing to make the same mistakes.

Today's podcast really hit the nail on the head about the challenges of female candidates and perceived 'likeability'. I met Hillary Clinton in 1992 when she was campaigning on behalf of her husband - the first thought I had was 'why isn't she the one running?'. She was so passionate about her vision for the country and I couldn't have been more happy to see her on the ticket in 2016. I could not understand the number of people who seemed to have negative comments about her. Fast forward to the 2020 democratic field - the amazing field of women that included Harris, Klobuchar and Warren and others seemed like another opportunity for an intelligent woman to break through. Unfortunately, not. While Americans like to think they are not biased, I am reminded of the story about the Chicago Symphony when they switched to a blind audition process. As soon as they changed to audition without seeing the participant, the number of females jumped up. The only explanation is gender bias. I realize blind auditions are not possible in a field like politics, but I wish there was a way to get a person's policy views and skills communicated to voters in a manner that did not include their gender.

Your excellent critique on the movie Contagion should have given appropriate credit to the Science advisor. Dr W. Ian Lipkin. His expertise enabled the movie to have the tremendous accuracy that now resonates so deeply. You would be wise to add this acknowledgment tomorrow. Dr, Lipkin did a great service to us. This service deserves a public recognition. Ellae Elinwood

It's unclear if Warren slipped in the polls due to the mishandling of her message from her handlers, whom she listened to, showing poor judgment; or if she presented a muddled message because she was trying to be too many things to too diverse a field, showing her to be (for more than just some) more of an opportunist than a person of strongly held convictions, worthy to stand behind for president of the United States. The same criticism could be lodged against Kamala Harris, another media darling and a DNC favorite, used as an attack dog against Tulsi Gabbard in pointed questions raised by moderator Ashley Parker, who attempted to orchestrate a cat fight. The clear thinking, courageous, full of convincing conviction Sally Yates would be the best V.P. choice for either candidate still standing. Remember her? She was the unyielding one who stood firmly against Trump, convincing the audience of her heartfelt convictions without need to raise her voice for emphasis, making him look far worse than any other female on the stage recently running for office. The fact that she happens to be a woman is incidental. It's an extra bonus that she has already been vetted.

It's easy: 1) Warren had a great platform, but backed away from things like Medicare For All because the DNC didn't want to alienate donors. 2) Her ludicrous attempts to label lifelong, overt feminist Sanders as a misogynist for political gain. Once I felt like I could no longer trust her, I stopped donating to her campaign. My wife and I had previously donated around $300 to her. Now we just donate to Sanders, instead of both.

I have mixed feeling about Warren's departure from the Democratic race. Although women have a more difficult path than men, Warren made numerous errors that may have proved fatal to a male candidate as well. Her first fatal error was to compete with Sanders for the progressive vote rather than establish herself as the unity candidate while she was still leading in the polls. She repeated Hillary Clinton’s error of producing a sea of plans without distilling these down to a few compelling ideas. Worse yet, she had a “plan for everything” except for health care insurance which was a priority for Democrats. When her health insurance plan belatedly emerged, it was little more than an echo of Sanders’ version of Medicare-for-All. She responded to the concerns of rank and file Democrats who didn’t want to lose their employer-based health insurance or Obamacare while M4A remained a wonkish idea, she proposed waiting until the third year of her presidency to introduce it. This sounded like a retreat to progressives and woefully naive to anyone else who knows that presidents usually need to get their signature policies and programs enacted within the first two years of arriving in the White House. That said, I’m saddened to see Warren go when she would have been the best candidate for leading an anti-corruption campaign not only against the venality of Trump, but also against the institutionalized corruption that has made Americans cynical about their and the nation’s future.

Undoubtedly, sexism affected the outcome of Warren's candidacy. But some of the ambiguous answers she gave, during the debates, did not advance her candidacy. For example, when she was asked about how she would pay for Medicare for All, she said her plan would not raise taxes on the middle class. However, she did not explain how she planned to pay for this plan. In another debate, a moderator asked her to respond to economists' arguments that the numbers in her plans didn't add up. The moderator's question was vaguely worded, because she didn't say which economists had made this claim. However, Warren did not rebut this argument, by providing details about how she planned to pay for her programs or asking the moderators which economists had made this claim. It's unclear why Warren was so vague about providing these details but, at times, it appeared that she didn't have all these details worked out.

The Daily used to be my very favorite news podcast...now, not so much. I loved the quick, in-depth, objective news report giving me what I needed to know on a particular topic. I do not enjoy the "In Field" episodes, and have just deleted these episodes. I do not find it interesting to hear newspeople knocking on doors and talking to people in their own home, for their opinions. It is hard to hear, not objective, and I don't really care what Peter Piper thinks about the candidates. Please, go back to just telling the news on one topic. I love the ability it gives me to understand a relevant topic.

I wish this covered more than just the people that were / weren't voting for her because she was a woman. She was one of the smartest and most prepared candidates running and there were a lot more reasons to vote for her than just because she was a woman. Obviously the electability issue was linked to gender, but the story weighed all of the pros and cons only in the context of gender, which was disappointing.

I'll not dispute that sexism played a role, as this piece posits. But for me personally, the main alarm bell regarding Sen Warren was her joining Sanders in asserting that she would ban fracking in the U.S. "from day one." While I certainly believe that getting off of fossil fuels is a vital goal, the fact is that the world will continue to require a reliable oil supply as we move toward that goal. Fracking as a method has been revolutionary, in that it has allowed the U.S. to become essentially oil-independent, at last unchaining us from the madness that is the Middle East. For a candidate who also purports to want us less involved in international disputes, throwing us and our allies back into the arms of despots in the Middle East, in Russia, in Iran and in Venezuela sounds disastrous on several fronts (including U.S. job losses and devastation of the U.S. energy sector). It made me wonder whether Sen. Warren thought things through as carefully as I'd earlier believed.

Elizabeth Warren is an exceptional politician , to discuss the fate of her candidacy only in terms of gender does not address her campaigns strengths and weaknesses. I see her positions as strongly progressive and at no point leaning into the moderate lane, therefore, never offering a third option. Her "PLANS FOR EVERYTHING" showed a real respect for the voters and a desire to communicate with voters but ultimately were distracting for an electorate looking for sound bites. For moderate voters Warren's insistence that "BIG STRUCTURAL CHANGE" would be free and paid for by the 1% did not ring true. For progressives, she could not crack Sander's army of true believers that feel this is not election but a revolution and a movement that will sweep the country. In the final analysis despite her many strengths Senator Warren's vision for the country could not capture the imagination of the left or center of the Democratic Party. It is sad because she would have been a great person to lead our country.

This was a disappointing episode. Sexism played a role in Warren's failed campaign for sure, but there are two big problems with the way this was reported: 1. It begins with Warren herself explaining that there were two lanes -- moderate (incumbent Biden) and progressive (incumbent Sanders) -- and she thought she could break in, but announces she was clearly "wrong." If we believe her, and I do, the focus should have been on the supporters of the lane-incumbent she was challenging: Sanders. The sexism that doomed Elizabeth Warren is the sexism of Sanders supporters. We did not hear from these overwhelmingly young, hard-left voters who preferred the elderly man. We heard about sexism generally and we heard from older people who voted for Biden because of "electability." That's part of the story, but the real problem for Warren were the youths who chose Bernie for the progressive lane. Sexism on the far left specifically was Warren's problem. 2. Why isn't Bernie winning? There's an emerging narrative that Americans want a moderate. Warren was not, in this field, a moderate. Amy Klobuchar did better than Warren in the early states. Sexism surely played a role in Klobuchar's withdrawal, but that's beside the point. Why did Klobuchar surge, not Warren? I wanted to hear a strong analysis of Warren's campaign failure, not just lamentations on sexism from staffers and supporters.

This article misses some points about the progressive perspective on Warren's loss and is thus unnecessarily glum about the campaign's end. Given that Bernie is a behemoth in the liberal lane where Warren's policies undoubtedly fall) her loss here is not a surprise. Warren just learned a valuable lesson in how to run for president which is that she needs political coalitions. While acknowledging innate sexism within most American voters, I don't think Warren's sex was the primary factor in her loss. I think it was that she is new in a game for the presidency that favors established players.

There are many answers to the question of "What happened to Elizabeth Warren?" but one of the biggest ones was not mentioned in this episode. When she revealed that her plan for Medicare for All would take longer than expected, and not be rolled out immediately. One reason Bernie Sanders has such fervent supporters is because of his extreme devotion to M4A, which a lot of suffering people feel is literally their only path to survival in a country where medical costs, for the insured and uninsured alike, mean an inevitable spiral into bankruptcy and homelessness if you are not wealthy. Personally, I understand that waiting 2 years for healthcare is not AS terrible as waiting 4 years or many more, but for people rationing insulin and those who will probably spread or die from COVID-19 due to the inaccessibility of the tests, they can't wait. Some people saw her post-midterms rollout as a more realistic plan, and some saw it as selling out. And now we only have ONE candidate left who believes health care is a human right-- a candidate who, by the way, may be an old white man but would also be the first Jewish president, which would make this lady very excited. The other Old White Man remaining wants things to go back to the way they used to be. One doesn't. We could have had 2 candidates to choose from who are progressive and care about us, but alas, we have one left. I miss Warren. I wish she were here advocating for us with Bernie right now.

Sexism is a very large factor. Sanders can be divisive and bombastic and that is okay. Biden seems to have an age-related cognitive issue given all of the nonsense that comes pouring out of his mouth. Warren is blamed for focusing on issues of disparity and because of her Medicare for All "misstep." In other words, she is nearly perfect and heavily scrutinized in a way that white men aren't. She was the hero of the day who took to Twitter to put down Trump when he ran in 2016. She does not have to prove her anti-Trump stances. As a current Senator, Warren has consistently voted for and advocated environmental, economic and social justice. It's more than sexism. It's male-identification. Men and women are raised to believe men are in the positions of authority. It takes a logical leap to get over that thinking. Other countries do not understand why we have not yet had a woman as president. We are a country founded on genocide, slavery, and romanticized white supremacy--and all of it includes the subjugation of women. We are in the midst of our own undoing as the veneer of "democracy" has led to fascism and will potentially lead to a true democracy if we insist upon it. A Warren presidency would have been an ideal beginning to uniting the country to move forward. The boys have a scant chance at beating Trump, and the fear-based mentality will cost us much.

The whole premise of this podcast is that Elizabeth Warren lost because she was a woman. I disagree and wish you would have explored why many women and men disagree with her liberal policies.

The March 10th episode of The Field felt to me like an unsatisfying piece of reporting and political analysis. If the question was, why did Warren lose, isn't it incumbent on the reporter to speak to some people beyond three loyal supporters of the campaign, and a comm staffer just days after the candidate dropped out? Was the idea to answer that stated question objectively, or explore the psychology of losing? Why not talk to at least one serious critic of her campaign, from the progressive, moderate, or even conservative realm of politics? Astead's conclusion at the end that the utter pervasiveness of sexism and racism makes reporting nearly impossible--an idea itself that some would call a liberal piety, that should at least not go completely unchallenged--makes me wonder about the huge obstacles younger reporters face to get outside their own ideas and assumptions about the world. If you don't really believe in objectivity, if you as a reporter can't view the world through the eyes of someone diametrically opposed to you (something the Daily usually does well), why even bother?

What happened to Warren is simple. By her admission, she was using Hillary Clinton style "triangulation," or Third Way politics, and it failed her as it did Clinton. She said, she was told there were two paths in the race: Biden (moderate) and Bernie (progressive) and she thought there was room for another lane. It's a tough needle to thread and it failed. The rest is nonsense.

Another good piece from the Daily but on the question in your title, you seem to be following the herd media. Here are some alternative themes that would have been worth exploring: 1. Warren was running for the Democratic nomination. So, the misogyny you featured in the GOP is largely irrelevant. There is sexism among Dems but we voted for the woman in 2016. And many of us had an appetite to see a woman President replace Trump. 2. Warren was running on the left (she can say she didn't believe there were lanes but all her attacks Pete & Amy were from the left, which surely was no accident). There is some sexism on the left. But on the left especially, there are plenty of people who really want to vote for a woman. Also, Warren lost the young. Did Warren lose the left and/or the young because of sexism? 3. Warren wanted to make a multiracial coalition but she got beat badly among Blacks and Hispanics. Is that because of sexism? 4. Warren had a natural shot with the center left but she really gave a chunk of that away. Her wine cave attack on Pete for the "crime" of raising money in the same way she had for almost her entire career is illustrative. The twitter left loved it. But, if you're an educated person (her sweet spot) whose other options included Pete, Amy and, before she dropped out, Kamala all of whom raised $$ in traditional ways, Warren had to look self righteous and hypocritical. Was this about sexism?

It was nice one of the interviewees give thoughtful pauses, “I would need more time to gain perspective,” challenge the reporter’s given choices, and say “I don’t know.” Insight can take some time to go beyond the initial thought. In contrast, the video started with a strong narrative and never left. Of course, if you look for sexism to explain Warren dropping out of the race, you’re going to find it, especially given who was interviewed and timing. And while certainly a factor, that doesn’t mean it was the only one, even if, given the above, that’s what comes to mind. Our perceptions are not always fully accurate. Speaking, in part, as someone who agreed she was the best choice, not every Democrat is going to support Warren for policy and other reasons. Like all the others, she was not perfect. Someone might have drawn on another factor. But these were not even part of the investigation. Beyond this, would you someday question how you define “diversity?” As is a common Times characteristic, your language implies all older white men are the same—and not in a good way. We’re either not included in diversity, or we fill just one “You’ve had your day” slot. We’re a box; not individuals. If we don’t have the disadvantages that women do, that doesn’t mean that, as people with stories, we don’t have others. But you’d have to look to see them. To dispute another frame, this doesn’t mean it’s the end of Warren. I would not be surprised to see her as VP, or even President someday.

It is not enough to be the best prepared, smartest candidate in the field. Facades, name recognition, branding and, unfortunately gender are everything in our politics.

I just listened to a woman talk about how other people's sexism was the reason that she didn't vote for Warren in her state primary. She laughed a lot and talked about what a shame it is but her belief was that other people's sexism was the problem. I find myself angry at this person. Vote your conscience, vote for the person you think is best qualified. Do not come on this podcast and tell everyone how Warren is the best candidate but, alas, you can't vote for her because other people are sexist. That, that is what doomed Warren's campaign. You are the reason, not anyone else. If every person were less concerned about what others thought, Warren would still be in the race. I am a Bernie Sanders supporter but I would have been thrilled to vote for Warren in the general election. For me, there were two great candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. I would have loved to see them fight together. How is it that other countries where women are ostensibly so much worse off have had women leaders but we have not? I don't know if it is this woman's latent sexism, it's so much easier to say well other people won't vote for a woman so I won't either. This is all just very frustrating. Warren should still be in the race.

I live in Massachusetts. I am proud to have Elizabeth Warren as my Senator, and I think she would have made a great President. But I had to vote for an elderly, white, centrist candidate because (1) I don't trust a majority of my fellow Americans to not be bigoted misogynists, and (2) the media, including my beloved NYTimes, are intent on smearing progressives as outside the mainstream, unelectable, and ineffective. How can we beat Trump if even the NYTimes is laser focused smearing our candidates? If Bernie wins, the Trump campaign need look no further than these pages.

This is Forrest Lammiman. Elizabeth Warren lost because she didn’t get enough votes. She started off strong some months ago, but then got increasingly shrill and more difficult to listen to. A lot of yelling and arm waving. More, her positions (e.g., Medicare for all without an option to keep one’s private policy, and her wealth tax) seemed overly dogmatic and for many Democrats headed toward Socialism too much. And yes, some voters doubtless rejected her based on sexism; but ask Hillary about that, a far stronger candidate who won the primaries by 12 percent, then won the popular vote in the general election by 3 million votes, but no nontheless lost for two primary reasons: (1) the electoral college, a dangerously anti-democratic constitutional provision; and (2) the many Democratic men who stayed home rather than vote for a woman. Sexism was not Elizabeth’s primary problem, however, for she also failed to garner the votes of the great majority of Democratic women, who compromise 60 percent of the Democratic electorate. And she failed to obtain many votes from three other key constituencies that also comprise the party’s base: African Americans; suburban voters; and older voters. If you don’t win women or any of these other three core groups, you can’t win the nomination. So it’s not surprising that she failed. That failure loomed large on Super Tuesday when she finished third in her state. Forrest