Elizabeth Warren campaign autopsy

[Alben Barkley]

A lot of people seem to have forgotten that in late 2019, Elizabeth Warren was widely regarded as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination and was leading many polls. But before the Iowa caucus, she collapsed; Bernie Sanders seemed to have picked up most of her progressive support while even candidates like Pete Buttigieg overtook her. The funny thing is she was considered a potentially strong candidate precisely because she was supposed to bridge the divide between the party's progressive and establishment wings; many here and elsewhere thought she had a good shot at the nomination for that reason. But the nomination ultimately came down to the two old guys who embodied each wing (Sanders and Biden) while she was shut out in the middle.

What went wrong?

Was it simply bad timing? Concerns about her electability? A problem of "jack of all trades, master of none" so that she didn't appeal strongly enough to either side of the party? Too "wonky" so that her appeal was limited mostly to college-educated whites despite her pretty populist platform?

She still pulled in strong fundraising numbers and was widely praised for her debate performances (aside from eyeroll-worthy moments like saying "Latinx"), all the way up through the end basically.

Ultimately I'm glad she didn't win the nomination as I don't think she could have beaten Trump. But at the time I was a little surprised she rose and fell so fast, and I haven't seen a ton of discussion since on exactly why that happened. Was there something she could have done different to maintain her lead and win the nomination?

[Alben Barkley]

She gambled that moderating her position on healthcare would pick her up a lot of centrists without sacrificing progressive support. Wrong on both counts, and that bizarre takedown she attempted to do of Bernie didn't help. Also, trusting Joe Rospars, the worst campaign strategist in American history, was a bad idea. He replaced her policy-driven focus with "Big Structural Bailey." Ultimately she spent a lot of her career fighting Credit Card Joe on various consumer issues and she's the reason he sailed through to the nomination.

LOL no, that is definitely not true. Are you seriously still propagating this myth? Warren dropping out would not have saved Bernie. Even if he took all her votes AND Bloomberg didn't drop out, Biden still would have dominated Super Tuesday. If Bloomberg (who got more votes than Warren) had dropped out too, Biden would have just dominated even harder.

Biden did not win because of Warren; Bernie was always doomed in a contest that came down to him and almost any other single candidate, simply because he was a factional candidate who banked his entire strategy on being able to win a plurality of ~30% of voters, never seeming to take into account the possibility that Democrats would learn from the 2016 GOP primaries and consolidate around one candidate against him.

If anything, a two-way Biden vs. Warren contest probably would have been closer. She would have kept most of the progressive support and gotten more moderate/establishment support than Bernie ever could have.

Plus, in what way did Warren moderate her position on healthcare? She also supported Medicare for All, she just offered more details on how she actually wanted to do it than Bernie. Is providing details and plans rather than just shouting your demands considered "selling out" to socialists or something?

[Alben Barkley]

In short, she had all the weaknesses of Bernie Sanders and none of the strengths.

Bernie's strength is that he comes off as authentic, never changing his principles, even if you disagree with them. He's been preaching the same sermon for the past 35 years, and he's always fought for the little guy, even as Mayor of Burlington.

His weakness is that a large portion of his platform is easy to decry as "socialist" or "Big government", two things that generally don't play well to the American electorate. Easy fodder for the GOP.

With Warren, her platform is similar to Sanders, but she comes off as very inauthentic and contrived, almost in the same manner as Hillary Clinton did to lots of people. Mostly due to the fact that she's a former Republican, and did things like accuse Sanders of sexism without proof.

Bernie was perceived as the "real thing" to progressives, while Warren was considered the dollar store version. The moderate lane was taken up by Biden and Buttigieg, they had no interest in nominating Warren. So she collapsed.

Then the DNA test thing, which did more harm to her than most realize. She played into Trump's hand there, and looked horrible for doing it.

See I actually thought that should have added to her appeal. The narrative of “I used to be a Republican, but then I saw how they were screwing over ordinary people so I changed” was a potentially powerful one. And hell, Reagan used to be a Democrat, as did Trump! So clearly the right has no problem at all rallying around people who used to be “impure.” Pure speculation now, but perhaps that’s because so many believe in the whole “born again” Christian transformation/redemption thing and see a political conversion in a similar light.

But in any case, I don’t get the leftist fixation on absolute purity from the cradle to the grave. It’s just setting yourself up for disappointment because all humans, certainly politicians, are flawed and will never live up to the ideals in your head. I would argue it’s overhyped and mythologized in Bernie’s case anyway; he’s shifted significantly on more issues than people like to admit, including guns and immigration, and he voted for the very same crime bill his supporters bashed Hillary and Biden for. Honestly it doesn’t exactly help the sexism allegations that he can get away with all that and maintain this Messianic image while his female opponents are seen as “fake” and raked over the coals for any perceived impurities.