The Boston Globe, New England's largest newspaper, urges Elizabeth Warren not run for president.
Some of her friends tell me they quietly hope she doesn't run.
I have met with two classmates from college, people close to Senator Warren, friendly with her, very politically active Democrats here in Massachusetts, and, like Warren, about 69 years of age. Both share the progressive good-government sentiment that is dominant in Massachusetts politics.
They hope she drops out on her own, early, before she enters contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. They like her as a Senator. They think she will lose to Trump.
They hope she drops out on her own, early, before she enters contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. They like her as a Senator. They think she will lose to Trump.
Democratic Primary Message. They envision a bad Democratic primary, where Democratic activists choose between Warren, Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley, Joe Biden, Kirsten Gellibrand and a dozen others and then fight with each other about the exact acceptable policy. Candidates and activists will be forced to accentuate the policy distinctions among them, with the inevitable result that they project a meta message of contention over an array of unacceptable positions. The only unifying message will be that they are not Trump. That will be sufficient for Democrats but it will not be the unifying message that will win a general election.
Pocahontas. Warren's handling of Trump's mocking of her is now acknowledged as a disaster from every front. Some think she should have ignored Trump. Others think she should have responded much more promptly. Some think that her getting a DNA test is an insult to the notion of tribe, since it makes DNA the definition of tribe, and therefore inherently offensively racist. Some think that getting the proof of Native American ancestry is an example of offensive cultural appropriation. The only consensus is that it was a gaffe. Trump fatally weakened Warren, they think. Her national reputation has been established, not as a fighter for consumers against predatory Wall Street, but as a woman with a problem regarding her ancestry.
Push reset. Although Warren, my classmates, and I are all age 69, my classmates say she is too old. Each asserted they were not "ageist." The issue isn't chronological age; it is the need to turn the page on the boomer generation. Long-established political warriors prolong long-established political battles. Warren versus Trump does not project change, they say. It projects a continuation of a tiresome battle. Their view is that voters are sick and tired of Trump. Change doesn't mean picking a new winner of the battle. They think Democrats need somebody new and exciting.
5 comments:
I agree with your classmates. Even in 2016 I was wishing Warren was on the ticket instead of Clinton. I’m a Wasren fan. But she’s no longer the right choice to stand up to tRump. Nor is Bernie or Biden. We need a new approach - one that will unify a diverse electorate. Warren isn’t even polling well in her own state and this last election was her poorest showing yet - despite her highest level of visibility and name recognition.
What do any of those reasons have to do with Sen. Warren's qualifications for President?
Zero.
Sounds like simple misogyny to me, which, by the way, allows Trump to frame the discussion, keeping so-called moderates intimidated by his tactics.
Trumplicans are doing the Democrats a favor by giving them a rationale to become more Progressive, and I hope they accept it with heartfelt thanks. The issue for Democrats is not about the candidate. It's about promoting single payer healthcare, student loan forgiveness and reform of the system, and other issues that will address real issues and the voters affected by them. It's about reconciliation with the Bernie wing and Progressive independents, which is underway, and presenting a unified vision that includes all Americans. It's even possible that some (a few) disaffected Trump voters might be persuaded to change the error of their ways.
Sen. Warren is imminently qualified for that task, perhaps more than any other contender.
What do any of those reasons have to do with Sen. Warren's qualifications for President?
Zero.
Sounds like simple misogyny to me, which, by the way, allows Trump to frame the discussion, keeping so-called moderates intimidated by his tactics.
Trumplicans are doing the Democrats a favor by giving them a rationale to become more Progressive, and I hope they accept it with heartfelt thanks. The issue for Democrats is not about the candidate. It's about promoting single payer healthcare, student loan forgiveness and reform of the system, and other issues that will address real issues and the voters affected by them. It's about reconciliation with the Bernie wing and Progressive independents, which is underway, and presenting a unified vision that includes all Americans. It's even possible that some (a few) disaffected Trump voters might be persuaded to change the error of their ways.
Sen. Warren is eminently qualified for that task, perhaps more than any other contender.
I partly agree with you, Peter, but I probably disagree a bit more. I wish Warren had settled the DNA issue earlier, and I am sure that Native Americans understand that she needed something to substantiate her claim. She now needs to remind people that she never used it for being hired (I have seen regressive memes on this). That she proved that she was right matters.
Sanders appealed not just because of his speeches, but because of his record. Warren can also show a long record of support for progressive issues.
And when more people hear her speak, as with the latest video on foreign policy she produced, they can see the depth of her knowledge on so many issues. They can see an ardent, compassionate, articulate woman. She would speak to the issues people care about and not spend time attacking trump.
I also agree that it may turn out that the new blood is necessary. People like Sherrod Brown and Joe Kennedy.
I would like to see Elizabeth Warren and even my favorite candidate ever, Bernie Sanders, to stay in the Senate for the 2020 race. They are important leaders there and we will need to take back the Senate for the Democrats in 2020. As much as I respect our own Senator Merkely's work in the Senate, he doesn't have the appeal or karisma to be a successful candidate over the long haul of running for President. Joe Biden could serve on the cabinet maybe, but we need young energy and new faces. I really don't think the Democrats can win with another white male candidate. No Kennedys--we're tired of dynasties and Joe doesn't have the speaking skills of his relatives. I would like to see Tulsi Gabbard or Kamila Harris win the nomination. Maybe Beto as a VP. Tulsi is actually my preferred candidate right now and is somebody I could get excited about canvassing for. In the end, we need a candidate that inspires thousands of folks across the country to not only donate, but make phone calls, knock on doors, etc.--because Democrats win with grassrooots activism.
Post a Comment