An interesting development: today’s Globe puts an editorial and an op-ed on the first page of the opinion section (unusual), and then adds two more op-eds on the same topic (highly unusual). The argument all of them make: Elizabeth Warren should run for president.
Of course, we BMGers have talked about this subject long before the Globe thought of it. 😀 Charley wrote up a comprehensive list of why he thinks Warren will not run for president; I added a few of my own thoughts along similar lines; many others have chimed in, mostly (but not entirely) along the lines that Warren won’t, and/or shouldn’t, run.
What is notably absent from any of the four opinion pieces in today’s Globe is a realistic assessment of the downsides for Warren of tossing her hat in the ring. All of the pieces assume that Warren would be more influential as a presidential candidate than she is as a Senator. But why should that necessarily be so? Yes, she will get a lot more national press coverage, especially because if she jumped in, she’d probably see a quick bump in the primary polls that would make her appear competitive with Hillary. But much of the coverage would be on horserace nonsense, about the latest perceived gaffe, and about the latest tidbit that some RWNJ managed to dig up about Warren’s past, as it always is. A bunch more of it would be on international affairs – ISIS, Israel, Russia, all stuff that is squarely in Hillary’s wheelhouse and that is not likely to help Warren much. Relatively little of it would be about what Warren really wants to spend her time talking about, namely, income inequality and related economic issues. Query whether, as a presidential candidate, she could generate more favorable press coverage on those issues than she can if she participates in the campaign actively, but from the Senate.
And think about it: when was the last time that a primary candidate was able to direct the nation’s focus to particular issues to which he or she wanted to call attention, and actually achieve something substantive? I can’t think of one. Maybe Warren would be different. But maybe not – and if not, she likely returns to the Senate less influential for having failed than she is now. Unless she wins … but honestly, there is precious little evidence that that’s a realistic outcome.
So I remain skeptical that Warren will run, and also that she should. Have your views evolved?
I was initially enthusiastic about a presidential run by Elizabeth Warren. I have been persuaded by both the exchanges here and by events of the past year or so that Ms. Warren is most effective right where she is.
The Globe’s new-found enthusiasm for Ms. Warren further convinces me that she made the right decision by staying out of the race. To me, these op-eds primarily demonstrate the increasing irrelevance and superficiality of what was once a fine newspaper.
I like it that she can stay in office as long as she likes. I am impressed by her skill at choosing issues to focus on, and by effectively moving our party towards her positions on those issues. I find Senator Warren far more effective than Senator Clinton was. It seems to me that Hillary Clinton ran for the Senate as a stepping-stone to other pursuits. In contrast, it seems to me that Senator Warren ran for the Senate because she wanted to be a Senator.
I see a host of negatives in Ms. Warren running for President, and not many positives.
I hope that Ms. Warren stays right where she is. My enthusiasm for Ms. Clinton continues to wane as her identity as a public official separate from her husband continues to emerge.
At the moment, the 2016 presidential race is shaping up to be about as inspiring as the 2014 Massachusetts gubernatorial race. At the moment, I see no Democratic stand-outs, and the GOP field is as revolting as usual.
First of all, Warren does not want to run and has never expressed an interest.
Second, she can be more effective as a senator. As a senator, she can focus on the issues that she knows best and work as a real advocate. She would not be able to do this as well as president, and the presidency also requires foreign affairs work that is simply not her forte–or her interest, frankly. She can do a lot of good building the progressive wing of the Senate, which is of great importance because Congress creates and passes legislation.
Third, if she were to run and–hypothetically–to win, then her seat would be vacant, and Baker would get to appoint the interim senator until a primary and general special election. Joe Kennedy would probably be eying the seat, and he’d be a downgrade from Warren.
Note that the Globe does not say that Warren should be president, or even the nominee, or that the Globe would support her if she ran.
Rather the Globe says that it would be kinda sad, or at least boring, if she or someone didn’t run against Clinton, because gosh what fun is that.
The other argument in the editorial (which represents the paper) is that her candidacy would beneficially advance her issues and “enrich the political process for years to come.”
I have no doubt there will be many causes for regret in a Clinton candidacy and presidency. That’s what lesser-evils choices do. Warren running this particular gantlet will not change that.
The image of a Presidential bid advancing an actual agenda is a civics-lesson fantasy at odds with the money-choked reality of today’s corrupted political landscape. I’m not saying it could never be possible, but not in 2016.
Want to change that? Okay, elect more Elizabeth Warrens to Congress from other states. And leave her where she can do some good.
Some of the op-eds are better, and less nakedly opportunistic, but they are still wrong.
The Globe’s owners fear Clinton.
Why?
The “Globe’s owners” are (is) a Very Wealthy man.
And Hillary Clinton is a very good friend to the Very Wealthy. (This is the whole reason for the Warren movement)
I’d think the Globe’s owner would be very happy with an HRC presidency.
what is generally known as “horserace nonsense” would take the more specific form of “catfight nonsense.”
I too hope this contest never happens.
just in their home state. Nobody does that anymore. Is it because the primary season is too short, or is there some other reason?
For someone who wanted to have a voice during the primaries, a favorite son or daughter candidacy would be a good alternative to a full-scale challenge.
That being said I agree that Elizabeth Warren is more valuable as a Senator than as any kind of Presidential candidate, and that the energy being spent on thwarting Hillary Clinton would be much better spent on winning back some Congressional seats.
and I’d be for it. But it doesn’t excite me much.
The only purpose of these is to siphon votes from a similar nationwide candidate. In this case, that would be Clinton. Unless the Dems find some other candidate more progressive than HRC, I’m not in favor of weakening her like that.
The historical function of Favorite Son candidates was to arrive at the convention with a bunch of delegates pledged to the candidate. Useful bargaining chip in a brokered convention.
That does not happen any more and won’t this time either. It could but only if Clinton really were weak already. I mean, the Mass. delegation is not exactly massive.
A modern Favorite Daughter could bring Warren’s progressive economic message further forward without the need to oppose Clinton for the soul of the party. It would certainly delight the press.
In contrast to actually running for president, winning the Mass. primary would be a modest political goal that would not impede Clinton’s actual run, though I suppose hard-core Clinton supporters would be annoyed.
In the old days (before universal primaries) conventions began with many delegates uncommitted.
State delegations were controlled by power-brokers.
As described by trickle-up, a block of favorite son delegates was very useful to the power-brokers.
This scenario only works if a candidate is not arriving at the convention with enough to win a majority one the first ballot, and with the primary system of today most candidates are able to do this.
The super-delegate system added some suspense to the process, but now they commit (by pledging their support) as well.
It seems like every change (who remembers 72 and the whole Daley-McGovern business?) produces some good like more participation and some bad like anointed candidates or an early end to the primaries. The biggest blow has been to the interests of the news junkies. I think 08 and the super delegates was the last minor bit of excitement.
A presidential run by a current or former state official means more opportunities and more national attention for the local press.
And gain attention as Boston’s newspaper, which would no doubt result from Warren 2016. But a campaign of this kind would be poor idea for Warren. First, her chances of winning are smaller than Obama’s were in 2007: the field is cleared for Clinton in a way it wasn’t in that cycle, and Massachusetts is a weaker base for a national campaign than Illinois, among other factors. Second, her identification with the progressive wing of the party — which makes every reality-based member of the electorate love her — will make a national victory harder, absent another economic collapse or some other cataclysm that upends the status quo. Banking on the latter is reckless considering her current important and effective position.
Who offered a fine comment along similar lines above while I was composing mine!
Elizabeth Warren is the real deal. She is motivated by values and not by personal ambition.
Draft Warren!
We need leadership on economic legislation to completely re-tip the scales, and she can be far more effective in pushing that sort of sustained, multi-faceted policy agenda from the Senate. She can keep that agenda on the front burner there in a way one simply cannot do as president, where you must deal with putting out the fires of the day or the week, whether it be an international scuffle, ongoing wars, or other domestic issues. The plate is just so big. I told her this at an event about a year ago, around another time where there was a lot of excitement and talk about her possible running. I just wanted to add to the cacophony that there’s a lot of excitement about her where she is already, and so many of us support her completely.
How about if the Globe does it?
If they believe Warren’s policies and positions are that essential to the political discourse heading into 2016, then why don’t they insert themselves into that balancing role? Why don’t they press candidates on both sides on income equality-, student loan reform, etc.
It won’t be as easy as just transcribing what Sen. Warren has to say, but it is doable.
unseemly.
The Washington Post, New York Times, and Boston Globe of the 1970s did just that.
Not today, certainly not the Globe.
Oh, BTW — the links in the thread-starter are to pieces behind the Globe’s paywall. Those of us who don’t subcribe, and have already seen quota of five per month (thank you, google), can’t read them.
…that if you clear your cache, cookies, and browsing history you can trick the Globe and sites with similar restrictions into restarting their count of free articles.