Why did Elizabeth Warren's candidacy fizzle out so quickly?

[Music Man]

It seems that there was a brief moment in the fall--after a couple great debate performances and latching on to themes of "I've got a plan for that"--she really caught fire and was considered the front runner. I think we can all agree that she's energetic, kind, a fighter, experienced, knows the issues inside and out, and has name recognition. All ingredients for being a contender.

Then, just before Iowa, Sanders picked up steam and things just seemed to unceremoniously stop for Warren. She's been quickly relegated to 4th and 5th place finishes and is now poised to lose her home state.

Is it misogyny? I'm sure that's a big factor. Speaking purely for myself, I admire the politics of both Warren and Sanders, but I am tired of--year after year--our presidents being men. "The female Bernie Sanders" is an unfair relegation, though, and I wonder if that's what she's ultimately been perceived as, as opposed to holding her own true political identity unrelated to that of a male candidate.

I also tend to see Sanders as a re-tread, trying to take advantage of the apparatus of a party he's not part of, while Warren is a fresh voice, even at 70. Clearly the primary voters have felt differently.

I wonder if the larger issue is that it's been hard for her to draw a clear distinction between herself and Bernie. Bernie's support tends to be fervent, and anyone other than him is a non-starter. I've seen many try to claim that she's actually not a true progressive. Go figure. At least within the centrist candidates, there are pretty clear differences between the governing and campaigning styles of Buttigieg, Biden, and Klobuchar. I don't think it's as clear with Warren/Sanders, and that nebulousness has unfortunately played against her than Sanders. We're seeing Warren now try to draw that distinction by arguing she's actually an effective legislator. Too little, too late, I'm afraid.

[tarheelsunc]

1. Elizabeth waited too long to go after Bernie, while he had no such reservations. eom

[Bucky]

39. I don't think "going after Bernie" would have won her much support

She needed a Bloomberg to sharpen her sword on first.

She's come out with some brilliant stuff in the last 2 weeks, but it's a shade too late. This race was always gonna be Bernie vs Not Bernie. She needed to take Biden out (like Harris tried).

My gal is feisty, but she's not cut throat enough. A shame she's be a tremendous president. Somewhere out there in the multiverse there's a parallel Earth where Wesley Clark was president, then one term of Romney, who melted down the housing industry, followed by two terms of President Elizabeth Warren. That's the world I belong in.

[melman]

43. This is the exact opposite of what happened

[brush]

69. There's a theory that things happen, or don't happen, when they're supposed to.

Unfortunately, IMO, her time in the progressive lane at least, may have been in 2016 when many urged her to run as the progressive candidate but she declined, probably because she didn't want to run against Hillary, another woman.

And that in itself is sad since both would've been great presidents.

Sanders took advantage of her not running and has been running himself ever since and dominates the progressive space.

His and her calling for M4A and everyone ditching private insurance was a misstep, and she compounded it by partially walking it back. IMO that's when her campaign plateaued while Sanders, hurt less, continued on to hog the progressive lane.

[Ferrets are Cool]

2. I don't know the answer to your question,

but I have NEVER considered her "a female Bernie Sanders". Not saying you implied that.
I truly think she would make the best POTUS we have had in some time...IF she had a democratic congress to back her up.

[cwydro]

3. I agree.

[nycbos]

4. She is not a female Sanders.

She is in a much higher class. And SHE IS ACTUALLY A DEMOCRAT

[Music Man]

5. Yes, I absolutely want to be clear I don't believe that.

I highly suspect that that thinking is a part of some of the electorate, though. "If you like Bernie Sanders' politics but want to see a woman president, she's your person."

No one would ever dare say Bernie is the "male Elizabeth Warren," but somehow he has become the standard bearer of progressive politics and not her.

[Kurt V.]

6. Its what i call the Hillary effect. after she lost ppl conscientiously or not told themselves

a woman can't win. yet.

[BeyondGeography]

15. Definitely a factor

“Didn’t we just try that?” Have heard it more than a few times. She has made mistakes like all of the candidates but she has also paid a 2016-related gender premium for them.

[BComplex]

26. But Elizabeth is nowhere near as divisive as Hillary was.

There were many people who absolutely HATED Hillary Clinton. I've never heard ANYONE hate Elizabeth Warren.

[Kurt V.]

38. i agree but that's not a factor bc we tend to compartmentalize these things

[comradebillyboy]

41. Yet Hillary won 65,000,000 votes in the general, the second most

votes in any US election. She beat Sanders by four million without ever running a negative ad against him. Who was more popular? Who would have united the party better? Only Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were more popular in the Democratic party.

[brush]

46. Nowhere near as divisive as Sanders either.

[StevieM]

51. When she was Secretary of State Hillary was the most popular politician in America for years.

Her poll numbers were incredibly high. Then she got swift boated.

Elizabeth was never the Democratic nominee or the widely anticipated Democratic nominee. If she had been, the swift boating would have been bad, possibly including a bogus FBI investigation.

[spooky3]

59. If that were true, that would suggest she would be a leading candidate now. nt

[zackymilly]

33. Warren said that's what Sanders told her, and it stuck in some people's minds. n/t

[Ace Rothstein]

7. I don't know but it has been disappointing.

She is my 1 A/B with Bernie. We'll see where things stand before IL gets to vote.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

27. Same for me.

I’m likewise disappointed and don’t understand the “fizzle” either.

[DrToast]

8. Probably suffers from a lot of the misgivings people have about Sanders

I think Trump would crush her.

[andym]

9. Attacks from the middle at the debates over M4A distracting from her reform-based platform

She lost support both from the middle, because they were afraid she might actually be able to implement it, and from the left, when she created a timetable that seemed to put it off timewise. Mayor Pete effectively led the charge if I remember with the other candidates who did not want M4A adding to the "concern."

[brewens]

54. She needed to convince people they wouldn't lose the part of their pay medical insurance

represents while sticking to M4A. The plan needs to be that employers will still be paying that one way or another. It's the only thing most people "love" about those plans.

[HarlanPepper]

10. I think sexism had a role

Particularly with media coverage. Women have to be perfect. We saw that in 2016 when every little issue with Hillary was scrutinized to the nth degree while Dump’s missteps were framed as entertainment by the media.

I also think some Democrats are gun shy about nominating a woman. This is what has played out in my own house where I wanted Warren as my first choice but also vacillated between her and Harris in the early days while my wife has been exclusively focused on male candidates.

Obviously Warren hasn’t run a perfect campaign either. At the end of the day it’s probably not just one thing.

[Shermann]

11. She seems to get flustered easily

I'm concerned that Trump would really rattle her cage.

[Music Man]

13. Interesting. She has always seemed to be among the calmest, most unflappable people to me.

I truly can't think of any instance of her getting flustered. Her take-down of Bloomberg was deliberate, thoughtful, and matter-of-fact.

When Sanders is criticized, he yells, wags his finger, etc.

[DrToast]

16. I can think of one

Being trolled into taking a DNA test was not her finest hour.

[Music Man]

17. Yes, that issue was handled poorly. Unfortunate that it came about at the start of her campaign.

But I see that as a campaign tactical error and not "getting flustered," which speaks to one's disposition.

[LizBeth]

32. One thing. Now look at all the other candidates faux pas. Forgotten. If anything Warren fell into

the woman role of always appeasing those hurt.

[Shermann]

53. She seemed a bit flustered when Beto accused her of being "punative"

[LizBeth]

30. Warren is the least flustered which would be the inherent sexism along with emotional,

too angry, hysterical, not smiling enough. Meaning these things are not conscious decisions, but socially learned expectations and definitions for women.

[Shermann]

56. Fair point

I believe our first female president (hopefully Democratic) will have mastery over these emotional inflections.

[LizBeth]

60. "emotional inflections" Like Obama had to walk gently with the angry black man?

[LenaW]

12. I can only speak for myself

but for me, I like everything about who she is in the moment, now. And I know it's a long shot, but if she wins, I'd be fine with that, and would love to have her in the administration in some way.

My reservations have been about how late in life she came around to being a democrat. It's the distrust of her being a hard conservative republican til she was almost 50. It's like someone being openly racist til their mid 40s, then saying oh, yeah, that's way in the past. I see her policies, what she's been fighting for - I'm just having a hard time reconciling it all.

One thing that played well was the daily show clip featuring her, and her testimony in congress about the bankruptcy bill (coincidentally going up against Biden). Ads with that video (the testimony itself) would have been spoken volumes about the differences between the two of them.

[blm]

20. Republicans were more normal people back then.

[LenaW]

22. I was an adult back then

and let's just say, I knew better. Lots of us knew better.

[blm]

24. Her change came from intense study of economic issues

directly related to working families. Trickle down economics was just beginning to show results that could be quantified. She’s been voting Dem only since 1995.

[nbsmom]

34. "Late in Life" as opposed to not voting at all until you're 40?

Let's be clear: Bernie didn't vote—at all—until he was 40. He ran as an independent in 1990 and defeated a female Democratic candidate. He is STILL NOT A DEMOCRAT. HE STILL DOESN'T SUPPORT DOWN-BALLOT DEMOCRATS.

There is also the pesky matter of how many Republican strategists like Steve Bannon and Hugh Hewitt are encouraging people to vote for Bernie. Or how *45 tweets about how unfairly Bernie is being treated.

And remember, unlike Biden or Bernie, Warren hasn't always been a politician. What she has done in the short time as an elected official mirrors what she was already writing about in her books like "The Two-Income Trap." In her tenure as a Harvard Law professor, how she influenced several members of our current Congress.

[LenaW]

50. I have no problem with Bernie being a democratic socialist

because I don't have a problem with the policies that represents. I do have a problem with the policies that conservative republicans support. I care about what makes up a person's ethics, and those left of moderate line up with my ethics more than those to the right of moderate - or those claiming the moderate label, for that matter.

Anyway, I wasn't looking for a big argument. I was just explaining what my reservations about her are, in response to the questions posed in the OP. If she ends up dropping out and endorsing someone, that'll reveal whether I was right or wrong to be hesitant. Either she'll end up endorsing someone with a more progressive agenda, which is how I view her current position, or she'll end up endorsing someone who's been more friendly to corporate and republican interests.

Or she won't endorse anyone, and I'll be left forever wondering.

[nbsmom]

64. I just noticed that you are relatively new to the board

So a belated welcome to the Democratic Underground, where I believe that it's still part of the mission to support candidates of the Democratic Party.

Not looking for a big argument either, just wondering why you're more than okay with Bernie who's—again—not a registered Democrat and has shown no support for down-ticket races that impact our ability to govern as Democrats both at the state and Federal level—versus Elizabeth, who is a registered Democrat and can share many examples of how she has mentored, influenced, and supported Democratic candidates throughout the country.

[LenaW]

73. Thanks for the Welcome.

I'm pretty sure the rules here allow me to support a current candidate in the Democratic Primary. If not, they should change the little preference banner thingies we can choose from.

But really, that's a question to take up with someone higher up than me. The forum administrators. Or the DNC if you really want to get to the heart of that philosophical question.

[Skidmore]

67. This! This! This!

Absolutely! Sanders is not trustworthy because of the dubious ways in which he conducts himself.

[abqtommy]

14. I don't see this as an Elizabeth fail. Between the mealy mouths of tRUMP and the MSM and the

support for same due to the fear amongst the financial elites Elizabeth had a hard way to success.
One thing in her favor is that she doesn't have a son named Hunter or it would've been worse.

I still support Elizabeth and my use of that name is an indication of affection.

[blm]

18. Joe and Pete camps attacked her all fall and completely laid off Sanders after

his heart attack, no doubt expecting he couldn’t hold up physically on the campaign trail.

They succeeded in bringing Warren’s numbers down as Sanders’ numbers rose. At the same time some on Sanders team were trashing her claiming her timeline for M4A meant she dropped it, iow, they lied. Recently AOC said Bernie’s M4A plan will also need a transition period. So, basically, Sanders team is a pack of liars who control what his supporters now believe.

[NYMinute]

19. The numbers didn't add up

[nbsmom]

21. Three words: Misogyny. Erasure. Amplification.

Misogyny:
South Korea literally just adopted Warren's plan for the coronavirus even as here in the US, we put someone in charge who puts air quotes around "science." There is also the troubling element of some Bernie supporters who appear to be gleefully misogynistic—typified by the Twitter element now demanding that Warren supporters "take a knee," or calling her a "snake" or a "liar." Or when they quite publicly chastised AOC for admitting there is no path to M4A in 4 years.

Erasure:
Warren did come in third in Iowa, but you'd never know it: MSM cut to Biden's speech instead of covering Warren's. And partly due to Warren being given a really low percentage of speaking time at the New Hampshire debate, fifth-place Klobuchar had a great result in New Hampshire. And even with Warren's fiery performance in Las Vegas, the coverage still focused on (then fourth-place) Biden vs. Bernie.

Amplification:
Things we're NOT hearing about: the fact that David Axelrod's wife is still working on Mayor Pete's campaign. And the fact that Biden won his FIRST-EVER PRIMARY WIN LAST NIGHT—dude has been running for President since the 80s and he's just won his first primary.

What we are hearing, thanks to the amplification of concern trolls on social and in MSM: "America won't vote for a woman." "Maybe Biden can add Harris/Abrams/Klobuchar to the ticket." "Biden can make Warren Education Secretary." And this is my favorite: "Why do you want people to die? Warren's plan won't get us Medicare for All."



Don't get me wrong. I am #BlueNoMatterWho. But I prefer my candidates to be democratic capitalists who aren't being promoted by Hugh Hewitt and Steve Bannon and who will support and promote the gains made by House and state-level candidates in 2018 and 2019, thank you very much.

And to your last point, Warren knows that there is a percentage of the Sanders electorate than can and will follow a unity ticket. Take no prisoners is not her style, just as Democrats shouldn't be supporting ANY candidate with outstanding NDAs (and I'm not just talking about Bloomberg.)

[GaYellowDawg]

23. +100000

Fantastic summary. Thank you for laying it out better than I could have.

[LizBeth]

25. You had two old white men, from the start, suck all the air out of the room.

No one else could get traction. Harris, Booker. We had some good candidates. Better than both of the two. But they had it locked before the first vote.

[SKKY]

28. I asked the same thing about Kampala's campaign...

...they both seemingly did everything right. Not sure.

[Politicub]

29. Misogyny, most likely.

People will deny and argue that sexism is not a factor, but it absolutely is. The patriarchy is well-entrenched, and so many people sustain a patriarchal system without acknowledging it.

Getting rid of systemic and institutional racism, sexism and homophobia will take more than words. We need to take action and enact policies that address inequities and use our vote to change the status quo.

[BComplex]

45. Totally agree. Sexism is definitely a huge factor.

And we have 2 very smart, very capable women still in the race. But you wouldn't know it by watching the media.

[Politicub]

61. I look at Warren and Klobuchar and wonder what is wrong with us as a party?

And before that, Harris. We came so close to having Hillary as our president -- it is heartbreaking that she lost in the way that she did. And also infuriating, since the electoral college system was put in place to protect the rich patriarchy and, sure enough, it kept the patriarchy in place.

[Steven Maurer]

68. THIS

They don't call them "Bernie Bros" for nothing.

But to be fair, Warren also isn't a white-bro grievance politician edgelord like Sanders is. Sanders directs his rhetoric to the politics of hate, just like Trump does. And there is a lot of low IQ hate out there, mostly from the young who think that we elect kings and not presidents. That's how he can pander so transparently and they all believe him.

Her principal "mistake" was to try to make Sanders-style plans add up, when they really can't. But haters don't actually care that they don't, they just want an excuse to hate. Notice how Trump isn't being called on his lie that "Mexico will pay for the wall" by any of his hate-filled voters? Same basic emotional response.

[Quixote1818]

31. When she had that surge and moved to the top Wall Street went after her bigtime!

All kinds of stories of the market dropping like a rock etc. Sanders gets the same attacks but had already built a solid grassroots following that won't budge. Her extra support came from the middle and went back to Biden etc.

[Recursion]

35. She answered policy questions honestly

Unfortunately people don't want to hear that. The issues we face are complicated, and can't be solved by one-sentence solutions, and she doesn't pretend they can. But one-sentence solutions are what people want.

[Shermann]

58. I find her to be very honest

[Kaleva]

36. She started to drop in the polls back in early October and Sanders began is ascent.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html#!

Why that happened, I don't know.

[duforsure]

37. I saw it somewhere

That a large group unleashed a lot of money campaigning against her when she backed M4A. Biden is for the ACA which costs more.

[Codeine]

40. She seems to occupy a middle ground

between the Biden/Buttigieg wing of the party on one hand and the Sanders wing on the other. Sanders obviously picked up a big chunk of the left while moderates moved to the safe predictability of Biden; her vote got gnawed away from both sides.

[Bucky]

42. I'll say sexism rather than misogyny.

I don't think it's so much a hated of women (tho claro, there are some pockets of hate out there) as much a blind spot to seeing a woman lead our country. People vote with their guts; and their guts looked to Biden.

I'm really not that vehement a feminist. I just understand that Warren is hands down the best prepared candidate for steering our democracy in the right direction for the rest of this century. No one else is close.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go get ready for the Bargaining stage

[McCamy Taylor]

44. Wall Street. NYT went all "Anyone but Warren!" a few months ago.

And the same way the WaPo speaks for the Pentagon, the NYT speaks for wall Street

[stopbush]

47. Perhaps it's something hard to put one's finger on.

Like, she’s not presidential. Whatever that means.

Candidates who are presidential: Biden, Harris, Booker, Castro, Bloomberg. And Hillary - very presidential.

Not so much: Liz, Amy, Pete, Sanders, Yang.

Just as good a reason as anything else one cares to come up with.

[Turin_C3PO]

62. I think she's very presidential.

[stopbush]

66. She's a bit school marmish for my taste, not that my taste is the be all and end all.

[aikoaiko]

48. 2 things come to mind

At her peak and other candidates were going after her on how to pay for MFA, she answered the question but I think people had a hard time understanding.

And then there was the She Said - He Said thing with Bernie that didn’t play out well.

I ended up gettin off the Bernie-Elizabeth fences after the NV debate where I saw how good she could be at shredding a billionaire.

[at140]

52. Bernie offered more goodies?

and she did not accept money from Billionaires?
Only recently she has accepted a super-pack on her behalf.
Without money, it is difficult to stay in race.
No matter how bad Bloomberg was in debates, he can stay in race as long as his heart desires.

[Codeine]

65. She had the audacity

to only promise what she felt she could deliver. When the other guy is screaming about giving away the store for free that can be a hard act to follow.

[at140]

71. Xactly......nt

[stopdiggin]

55. Warren deliberately ran toward the progressive wing

and as we have seen repeatedly there is only so big a pool of "progressive" support out there. (and perhaps particularly in a year like this when so many Democrats are just plain nervous?)

I like Warren a lot more than I do Sanders .. but I think it's undeniable they were vying for the same votes. Sanders voters stayed home. Warren voters were perhaps more flexible, and wandered.

[musicman65]

57. In my observations

from the start,,no connect with the people that are looking for real answers

[Turin_C3PO]

63. I'm not sure honestly.

To me as a progressive, Warren is far more appealing than Sanders. Maybe if no one goes into the convention with a majority of delegates, she could be the “unity” candidate.

[mathematic]

70. Successful bully campaigns on social media

"snake"
"hillary-lite"
"neo-liberal"

These are all terms relentlessly messaged on social media towards Warren to isolate her from her natural progressive base. Neo-liberal! Can you believe that nonsense? She became toxic for no legitimate reason to online "progressive" communities and from there that was that, no chance in breaking out of the pack.

[Blue_true]

72. She didn't distinguish herself from Sanders quickly and firmly enough. nt