2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMatthew Yglesias: Elizabeth Warren should (still) run for president
Matthew Yglesias: Elizabeth Warren should (still) run for presidentWhen Warren initially passed on the presidential race, the conventional wisdom was that even if Clinton wasn't as progressive as Warren, she was much more electable a near-lock to win both the primary and the White House. Since then, though, Democrats have watched Hillary Clinton's lead in the Democratic primary slip, her lead in head-to-head polls against Republican candidates vanish, and questions over her email (and her campaign's inability to effectively respond to the email issue) mount.
The result is that the basic bargain of the Clinton campaign is breaking down: Democrats increasingly feel they need other options in case Clinton turns out to be much less electable than they thought.
Beyond crass politics, though, Warren would inject something meaningful and important into the race. Sanders is in many ways a surprisingly effective legislator someone who, despite his somewhat marginal ideological position on Capitol Hill, does an excellent job of crafting amendments that actually pass and finding co-sponsors for his various ideas.
The problem is that while presidents sometimes get to operate as legislators-in-chief the way Barack Obama did in 2009 and 2010, a Democratic successor to Obama is not going to be able to operate this way. The odds of a continued Republican congressional majority are overwhelming, and mean that the most important job the Democratic nominee will be running for is the job of regulator-in-chief.
That's a job to which Warren is perfectly suited.
If Warren genuinely thinks Clinton is a strong candidate, and that a Clinton administration would zealously represent her rules on the appropriate role of finance in the American economy, then that would of course be a good reason to stay out. But if as seems to be the case she is concerned that her populist vision may not hold sway in the White House even if Democrats win in 2016, then it's not too late for her to try to get the job for herself.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)She is not endorsing anyone while Bernie is "expanding the conversation" and making voters realize they should be demanding more, but our nominee will have her extremely valuable backing.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)If we give her a majority -- and in the process blow McConnell out of the job he coveted for 30 years. But she's said she doesn't want that either. Maybe she thinks she'll actually be more free to harness the wind as she is.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)First, if she WERE to enter the race at this point, she'd be splitting a lot of her vote with Bernie, just as Hillary would if Biden enters the race. Which means both she and Bernie would have a far lesser chance of winning. Second, she'd be incredibly behind on fundraising, and again, she and Bernie are sharing logical donors, so she'd have far less time to raise funds to be competitive, and would be able to raise less.
So electorally, her entering the race at this point in time would basically doom both her and Bernie's chances of winning the primary. The time for her to enter was BEFORE Bernie, back when he was waiting to see if she WOULD enter the race. He held the door open, she chose not to go through it, so he stepped forward. For her to suddenly jump in now would leave them both stuck in the doorframe.
Secondly, she's doing fantastic work in the Senate, and I know of no replacement lurking in the wings with her credentials to take up the fight. So it would be a major loss for progressives in the Senate.
Bernie isn't stupid. If he wins, I'm certain he'll consult with her frequently, even if it's in an 'unofficial' advisory role so as not to interfere with her work in the Senate. We'll get our cake and eat it too.
Pastiche423
(15,406 posts)It makes me smile when I read that another DUer realizes how much we need Elizabeth in the Senate.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)I hope she will Stump for Bernie down the road in his campaign. I like that she's coming out now with positions similar to Bernie that are getting attention. She'd be great on the campaign trail.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Had she jumped in when the draft Warren effort was going on it she'd probably be doing even better than Bernie. Now it would just split the anti establishment vote and make her look like a spoiler.
artislife
(9,497 posts)but I thought that Bernie met with her to make sure she wasn't going to run. I believe that he would have supported her candidacy. Since she convinced him she wasn't interested, that is when he decided to jump in. I was on the Run Warren Run bandwagon. I think she was his first choice.
Again, this is not based in fact, just my opinion.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Had she entered the race. She's been saying the same things he has plus we'd still have the history-making possibility of electing the first female president. I'd have been all over that.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'd love to see her as Bernie's VP and then the first woman president in 2021.
jfern
(5,204 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)She should take that step, because she can be assured that Sanders is on her side and will follow her advice.
It's time for progressives to step up to the plate.
She can't be so sure of that with Hillary Clinton, that's a certainty and she of course knows that.
When Warren says "the game is rigged", she knows what side of the game Hillary Clinton plays for.
energy_model
(25 posts)He's bored.