Should Elizabeth Warren Endorse Sanders ?

[JI7]

I use to think it would not make much difference. But this was when polls showed him leading in mass. Now they show Clinton leading.

Even then it might not help. Clinton won there in 2008 when Ted kennedy endorsed obama and kennedy is a much more influential figure and popular with minorities.

But kennedy did help more in the image of the campaign in bringing momentum and excitement.

I think she does prefer Sanders over Clinton but I'm not sure how much.

[99th_Monkey]

1. Crap .. all I saw at first was "Elizabeth Warren Endorse(s) Sanders"

Snap! ..thought she'd finally done it.

[hack89]

2. She can't afford to damage her political image

it is too late. If she endorses and Bernie gets steamrolled than she looks weak and ineffective.

[JI7]

3. if it makes her look like she is committed to those issues

He is running on

[hack89]

5. She is a smart woman. She will make the right choice in her own time. Nt

[Gregorian]

6. I don't think endorsing a losing candidate would hurt her. She isn't running on image.

Reading your post somehow made me realize that if she so much as endorses Bernie it will only be to her benefit.

And of course I could be completely wrong. It's just I'm beginning to think it's best to stick with principles.

[hack89]

7. Have you ever considered that she prefers Hillary? Nt

[SheenaR]

13. Yes. Doubtful.

Unless she has "evolved" since then.

[hack89]

14. Then perhaps she doesn't consider Bernie a serious contender

the fact that they agree on many things doesn't automatically mean she thinks him fit to be president.

[SheenaR]

20. We have seen the wrath of the Clintons

Warren doesn't need them as enemies if she isn't sure Bernie will win. I don't blame her.

[onenote]

23. Are you saying she isn't as brave as Keith Ellison or others who have endorsed Bernie?

Because that certainly doesn't fit with her willingness to take on the powers that be.

Whatever her reasons are, I doubt very much they're based on fear.

[SheenaR]

24. Does Keith Ellison have White House ambitions?

Not to my knowledge.

[onenote]

27. Has Warren ever expressed Presidential ambitions?

People have expressed their wishes she would run but has she ever indicated that she has such ambitions?

[SheenaR]

28. From a neighboring state

It's commonly spoken of in this area that it's in the cards. But no she has not

[hack89]

34. So she is a coward.

that certainly takes her down a notch in my eyes.

[book_worm]

4. If she personally prefers Sanders as you say--she should endorse him especially with

his campaign needing to win Massachusetts. My feeling is that she is neutral and she likes certain things about both candidates. My feeling is that while she agrees with Bernie more on some issues than Hillary that in the end she thinks Hillary would be the better president. But she will endorse and work for the Democratic nominee--in the end that is what counts.

[Nonhlanhla]

21. I think your analysis of her is spot on. nt.

[LexVegas]

8. She wont back the longshot. Damaging to her own image.nt

[Chitown Kev]

9. If she wants to, yes.

[Meldread]

10. It's too late now, bad move for her, but this is Sander's fault.

Once it was clear that Senator Warren wasn't getting in the race, there was no reason for her not to endorse Sanders aside from future political advantage. It is obvious to everyone that Senator Warren is the other person in the Senate that is closest to Sanders on the issues, especially on the major issues around economic inequality, trade, and the big banks.

Sanders should have found a way to force her to come out and endorse him early on, as it was always clear that Clinton was sending signals to everyone to stay away from Sanders and any other candidate running against her. He needed to break Clinton's strangle hold over liberals within the establishment, and scoring a Warren victory would have done it. Others would have followed.

He failed to do that. This is on him as a candidate.

[kennetha]

11. Why would she endorse Sanders?

when she is a much more pragmatic and realistic politician than he is?

Here's her position on Single Payer:

HOST: If you were the tsarina, something like single-payer, government run health care, far lower administrative costs, that sort of thing, would be the Senator Warren prescription, would it not?
ELIZABETH WARREN: I think right now what we have to do--I’m serious about this--I think you’ve got to stay with what’s possible. And I think what we’re doing–and look at the dust-up around this–we really need to consolidate our gains around what we’ve got on the table.

HOST: But you do support single-payer, do you not?

WARREN: No, what I’ve got right now…

or when she prefers a debt-free college approach -- much more in line with Clinton's approach -- than Sander's tuition free approach.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren used to be known for arguing that the government shouldn't make money on student loans. Now she's arguing that students shouldn't have to take out loans in the first place.

"While not every college needs to graduate every student debt-free, every kid needs a debt-free option—a strong public university where it’s possible to get a great education without taking on loads of debt," she said today in a speech at the Shanker Institute.

Debt-free college is more progressive than simply making tuition free, as Sen. Bernie Sanders has propose

Sanders supporters simply have the head in the sand -- pun intended -- and think that the entire world just swoons the same way they do over his policies.

[Meldread]

16. Ha!

First, I am not a Sanders supporter. I am a leftist, and while that may make me sympathetic to some of Sanders milk-toast policies I see Sanders as a weak leader. Second, I agree that Warren has been more pragmatic than Sanders. She is not nearly as politically inept.

My point was that if Sanders had more political skill he could have forced her to endorse him. All it really would have taken was his campaign to secretly leak that Warren was not sufficiently pure enough on her core issues. That undermines her entire persona in Washington, and makes it look as if Sanders is more 'the real deal'. Sanders would want his non-campaign supporters to openly question Warren's commitment to Wall Street reform and the like, to the point that reporters are constantly harassing her with questions.

If she wanted to keep her mantle, she would have endorsed. Otherwise, Sanders could have moved more firmly into her territory as the "real" reformer, while having Warren painted as an establishment sellout. Either way he wins.

[kennetha]

19. I agree that Sanders is VASTLY

overrared as pure political animal. The limits of his strategy and tactics are extremely obvious. Plus only because Clinton needs his supporters, she has attacked and criticized him only in the most gentle of terms. I think both he and his most committed supporters are blind to both his limitations and his vulnerabilities.

[Meldread]

30. I agree 100%

People attribute Sanders very limited success to him. They talk about how he has basically been shut out of the media, not treated seriously, and how the Democratic Establishment has basically been 100% against him. They talk about how "amazing" it is that he has done so well. However, the reverse is actually true. This is really an example of how weak Clinton is as a candidate, that someone like Sanders could actually do as well as he has. Had she actually run against a formidable opponent, she would have lost worse than she did in 2008.

You are also correct to point out that Clinton has really gone after Sanders with kid gloves. People talk about how unfair and brutal she has been to him, but the truth of the matter is she's gone incredibly easy. She hasn't hit him harder than she needed to in order to win. Had he stepped into a General Election the Republicans would have ripped him to shreds. This is perhaps the one good thing we can say about Hillary, and that is that she has endured constant attack and scrutiny from the Republicans. She knows how to handle herself when faced with it. Sanders has never faced anything like it, and in the face of Clinton's kid glove treatment, he is already wilting.

It's upsetting that we didn't actually have a strong leftist running against Hillary, who was also a strong political leader.

[Recursion]

12. I still can't imagine any voters she brings to the table for him

I agree that it seems more useful now that MA seems to favor Clinton, but I just have trouble imagining there are many people at all who like Warren but aren't already supporting Sanders.

[delrem]

15. HRC is getting a shitload of endorsements from "the progressive caucus"

and it helps her tremendously.

I think you know very well that if Warren endorses Clinton it's game over for Sanders.
If she endorses Sanders it might show the other self-styled "progressives" what it looks like to have some spine. That kind of momentum sure couldn't hurt.

Otherwise they might as well all just call themselves "centrists" and be done with it.
Hey, maybe they can cash in on speaking fees too!

[MaggieD]

17. That ship has sailed.

If she was going to endorse him she already would have done it.

[delrem]

18. You're saying there'll be no more endorsements from top Dems?

That the recent endorsements are the last? That time's now up?

How do you figure that?
Will you change your mind if Warren endorses Hillary Clinton?

[MaggieD]

22. I'm saying if she was going to endorse him

.... she would've done it by now. Her state votes on Tuesday.

[Barack_America]

25. She should keep thinking 2020.

[snowy owl]

26. Warren's power is made bigger by our inability to quantify it

So, if she endorses one or the other and that candidate loses her power is diminished She should not endorse.

[tularetom]

29. The Clintons have a ton of chips out there, built up over the past 25 years

And they're calling them in, as they need them. Warren is in touch enough to see which way the wind is blowing.

Warren may want to stay off the Clinton enemies list. Won't do her much long term damage but it won't help to keep the even more of the country from being given away to Wall Street banks and corporatists.

She won't rate a chapter in the next edition of Profiles in Courage, but she'll live to fight another day.

[BillZBubb]

32. This is probably closest to the truth.

Don't pick sides or make enemies, support the eventual nominee, remain viable for 2020. After 4 years of President Trump, she'll have a real shot at the golden ring.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

31. Yes she should endorse Bernie now!

[BernieforPres2016]

33. I don't think it matters

Virtually everybody who is a big fan of hers is already in Bernie's camp.

[seaglass]

35. It really won't change anything except providing a morale boost to those already voting for him.

I think this article is spot on:

http://blogs.wgbh.org/masspoliticsprofs/2016/2/22/warren-wont-endorse-sanders/
...
"There’s no denying the ideological fit between Warren and Sanders, but there is also a significant difference between the two. Warren understands better than Sanders the limited utility of protest politics. She also understands that if Sanders truly is capable of winning in the fall, he would also be capable of winning the nomination without her foot on the scale.

The perception, repeated by Eric Fehrnstrom in the Globe recently, that Warren owes her own 2012 election to ultra-progressive voters and her “anti-Wall Street crusade” is flatly wrong. Warren was a good candidate who definitely put her progressive message front and center, but she beat Scott Brown because she is a Democrat, not because she is a progressive. Warren understands that the realization of her agenda requires a healthy, powerful Democratic Party. She may sympathize with Bernie’s ideology and values, but she does not sympathize with Bernie’s contempt for the Democratic Party establishment. "

[kennetha]

37. The only discernible place where she is closer to Bernie than to Hillary

is on the reinstatement of Glass-Seagall.

Otherwise, she seems infinitely more pragmatic and far less rigid than he is:


when she is a much more pragmatic and realistic politician than he is?

Here's her position on Single Payer:

HOST: If you were the tsarina, something like single-payer, government run health care, far lower administrative costs, that sort of thing, would be the Senator Warren prescription, would it not?
ELIZABETH WARREN: I think right now what we have to do--I’m serious about this--I think you’ve got to stay with what’s possible. And I think what we’re doing–and look at the dust-up around this–we really need to consolidate our gains around what we’ve got on the table.

HOST: But you do support single-payer, do you not?

WARREN: No, what I’ve got right now…

or when she prefers a debt-free college approach -- much more in line with Clinton's approach -- than Sander's tuition free approach.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren used to be known for arguing that the government shouldn't make money on student loans. Now she's arguing that students shouldn't have to take out loans in the first place.

"While not every college needs to graduate every student debt-free, every kid needs a debt-free option—a strong public university where it’s possible to get a great education without taking on loads of debt," she said today in a speech at the Shanker Institute.

Debt-free college is more progressive than simply making tuition free, as Sen. Bernie Sanders has propose

Sanders supporters simply have the head in the sand -- pun intended -- and think that the entire world just swoons the same way they do over his policies.

[DrDan]

36. 40 senators have endorsed HRC - I see a strong message there