With each passing day I am finding it peculiar that Elizabeth Warren has not endorsed a candidate in the Democratic primary. It’s not like fellow senators have shied away from endorsing a candidate. Most recently with the Bill Moyers video and articles highlighting how Sanders and Warren have busted the political machine I would expect some sort of clarification or statement from the Warren camp, but instead it’s silence.
I don’t think it’s lost on Warren that this silence in many ways is helping Sanders, team Sanders who have a pattern of associating themselves to groups without an endorsement are hitching their wagon on Warren and she’s letting them.
Perhaps Warren will not endorse in the primary or will endorse very late and use her role to unify the party once a clear winner emerges. But at the same time, it sure feels like she wants to endorse Sanders.
Christopher says
…what many prefer superdelegates do and follow the will of their constituency, thus she will pledge to vote for the winner of the MA primary.
johnk says
that’s a good point. What I found interesting was all the inference by Sanders team and no statement that that she hasn’t endorsed anyone yet.
jconway says
If she endorses Sanders she could overshadow him and if he loses the nomination she is on the Clinton shit list for life and will not get anything out of that White House. Remember they actively punished Obama endorsers in intraparty primaries with their fundraising and cache.
This allows her to stay above the fray and be a potential King or Queenmaker as the race continues. If Sanders win, pretty easy to latch onto him since he’s a natural ally. If Clinton wins, it forces Hillary to come to her and kiss the ring before she gets a blessing.
And for the last time she isn’t going to be our prez or veep nominee. Not now, not ever.
TheBestDefense says
I don’t think that Warren is worried about being on anybody’s shit list. She is way too smart, way too important in the real world to worry about being on HRC’s shit list. HRC should be worried about being on Warren’s “most dialed list.” Look at the beautiful thumping Warren gave to Obama on Larry Summers and the Fed, generally.
jcohn88 says
She has no incentive to endorse. She loses a lot of leverage with endorsement. She probably thinks (as I do, even though I’m a Bernie supporter) that Hillary will be the eventual nominee. By not endorsing anyone yet, she has leverage to make demands and shape debate. She can take the position that her endorsement should be “earned.” If she endorses Hillary, that leverage evaporates, and she becomes a surrogate. And I don’t think she wants to be anyone else’s surrogate because of the diluting impact of that on one’s own voice. And if she endorses Bernie, she ends up on the Clinton’s sh*t-list.
ryepower12 says
I want to point out that I have no hang-up that supers make endorsements.
I have a hang-up when supers would try to interfere with the will of the voters.
A super could endorse and work hard for a candidate they preferred — and that’s great — but when they go to the convention, they should vote for whoever won the most popularly elected votes.
Or even the most votes in their state or, if they were a congressperson, district.
And, ideally, the Democratic Party should — in the future — strip away the vote of the superdelegate. Let them run like anyone else.
Christopher says
I have no problem with EITHER superdelegates showing leadership by endorsing AND following through by voting for their candidate at convention OR saying from the getgo that they will not endorse and see what their constituents decide. I have a huge problem with them endorsing first THEN switching rather than sticking to their convictions. I’m rather Burkean in my philosophy of representation and will just as much defend their right to vote their consciences in this context as I would in Congress itself.
The process is intended to involve both voters and insiders. They absolutely should NOT run like everyone else. The whole reason for making them superdelegates is to REMOVE them from the pool of those who would run and give grassroots activists a chance. Otherwise, if you had to run against your Congressman for the privilege of being a delegate his machine would almost certainly overwhelm whatever handful of friends you brought to the caucus to vote for you.
fredrichlariccia says
where else but BMG could you be debating Burkean philosophy before you had your first cup of morning Joe ? I just love this place ! đŸ™‚
But to those that may not be as learned as our friend, Christopher, might I offer the referenced quote from Edmund Burke ?
” A representative owes his people not only his industry but his judgment, and he betrays them both if he surrenders to their opinion.”
Please proceed.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
jconway says
I think it would be a disaster for Hillary’s super delegates to crown her over the will of the voters if they majority of Democrats choose Sanders in the primary. That said, I wrote my BA on Burke and will uprate any discussion about one of my favorite conservatives.
doubleman says
If a party’s establishment overrules the will of the voters in this era, not only will that candidate lose the election, the party will be totally $%^*ed for at least a few cycles.
I know that I would unenroll so damn fast and never consider voting for a Democrat who supported such a move. (And that’s even if the candidate I supported was the one chosen.)
I can’t imagine the Democrats would do that.
Christopher says
I don’t know if your first paragraph is true. Part of the strategy behind creating superdelegates was to put the thumb on the scale for someone MORE electable (to be blunt: no more McGoverns is how it is often put.) Remember, most candidates for major offices don’t NEED the job they are seeking. They’ll suffer a bruised ego and move on if they lose. However, if you sit on your hands or vote for someone else even if the Dem is your preferred candidate, you risk policies being enacted that negatively affect you. Besides, this only means anything if the vote is close anyway. If, for example, Sanders were to continue to rack up landslides like he did in NH, all the Clinton supers in the world will be but a footnote.
doubleman says
If the party betrays the clear will of its members, it does not deserve any allegiance whatsoever. Overruling the will of the voters in that way would be such a fundamental, anti-democratic thing to do, that the party should and likely would implode.
If they’re going to shit on me like that, I’m not going to smile and eat it. Again, I would reject the party (and all those who supported the move) even if they went with my preferred candidate. Being fundamentally anti-democratic is not something I’ll accept. In terms of electoral fallout, I will work extra hard to get those with the right values in office at any level.
I admit that I don’t have much party allegiance anyway. I support (and donate to and work for) Dems regularly because those candidates often align most with my values, but I don’t care much for the party entity itself – the leadership of which I often actively despise.
The only way the Dems win a presidential election if they choose Hillary over Bernie when Bernie wins more primary votes (which is like a <1% chance of happening) is if the Republicans do the same on their side.
I don't think the Democrats would do it in this era, but if they did, it would be suicide.
Christopher says
May face now hurts just from reading the comment title:)
centralmassdad says
I don’t understand why this is such a big deal. You guys got all exercised about this in 2008, as well, because before Obama picked upsteam, the SDs were “pledged” to HRC. But then, once BO started picking up steam and running ahead in the regular delegates, they switched. Yawn.
I guess the theory is that the SDs could view Sanders as such a catastrophic candidate that it would be a McGovern redux, and would try to prevent such a terrible result. But I don’t get the sense that there is actual concern that this is the case. And even if it is actually true, it would be likely that the party is screwed for a few cycles in any event.
People would be better off counting the pledged delegates, which shows a small Sanders lead right now, instead of yelping about this perennial non-issue.
ryepower12 says
it’s incredibly likely to happen, but a few things to consider:
1) Bernie is going against the grain in a way that Obama wasn’t. Would the establishment have gone along with Obama in the same way if Obama essentially wanted the establishment gone? I’m not so sure.
2) The margin matters. Once Obama started winning, he really, really started winning — even in states he ‘lost’ he sometimes ended up with more delegates, which constantly embarrassed the Clintons. If Obama and Clinton seemed like an even match up for months, and no one knew who was the clear favorite at the convention until the end, things may have happened differently.
If Bernie ends up winning the popular state delegate count, it’s probably going to be by a much closer margin than Obama did, and she has a more dominant lock on supers than she ever did at any point in the ’08 race.
I still think you’re right. I still think if Bernie starts winning, supers will start going Bernie’s way, and some Hillary supers may feel compelled to vote Bernie… but I also think circumstances are such that there should be more concern over this issue than there was in ’08, and people should be vocal about this issue now — just in case it could become an issue later.
Christopher says
…I assume you meant your first line to read, “it’s incredibly UNlikely to happen”?
ryepower12 says
.
centralmassdad says
The reason this seems remote- like “what if Hillary wins powerball twice a week for the rest of her life?” Is that it is so hard to wind up at 50-50 in a process that takes five months. Eventually someone has the upper hand and a then everything slides their way. Even 2008, the closest primary race I can think of. The protracted nature of the race makes it almost impossible.
ryepower12 says
is what the supers would be doing, but they wouldn’t be going home — they’d be shutting out the tens and tens of millions of voters around the country, who made their votes with the silly idea that those votes would count.
They are the democratic party. Not the elite VIPs.
And if our party overrode the will of the voters, it would get destroyed… and we would deserve that destruction.
For the record, I’d leave the party too. And I’m nothing if not a party loyalist. I take my oath as a DTC member, to only support the democratic nominee, seriously. But I could not in good conscience remain part of a party that didn’t take the will of the actual membership of the party seriously.
Christopher says
…and we absolutely DO take membership input seriously, but it’s not the only input. They wouldn’t be shutting out tens of millions. In relative terms it would be a handful of votes difference for this to matter.
ryepower12 says
letting people know you or your organization supports someone, or for helping to work to get that person elected…. it’s not for stuffing the ballot box, which is basically what supers do when they vote for the nominee at the convention.
I’m pretty sure Congressman Lynch Neal… or Kate Donaghue’s endorsements… still matter if they and/or their supporters call phones or knock doors, or by making good arguments online, among friends or in newspapers… but they can choose to abstain or the state delegate popular winner come convention time.
That’s what I think they should do.. until the superdelegate process is reformed so that they either no longer exist or they don’t have votes. If supers exist, and they want a vote at the convention, I think they should have to run like anyone else, using the same process as anyone else.
Christopher says
…so at this point I can only refer my honourable friend to the comments I have made previously, including this post from almost exactly eight years ago today.
johntmay says
The Hillary Clinton supporters bragged that “if you want to canvass in New Hampshire this weekend, you can canvass with just about any of our elected officials from Massachusetts who all support Secretary Clinton!”
I told them I wanted to canvass with Senator Warren.
The room went quiet.
So who does Senator Warren support?
SomervilleTom says
Why is it so hard to listen to Ms. Warren and accept what she says?
She’s said she’s not ready to endorse. It makes perfect sense for her to wait until the party nominates a candidate and then support that candidate.
She has nothing to gain and everything to lose by endorsing now.
She’s already said “no” several times when asked about running for President.
I’m confident that Ms. Warren will endorse a candidate when Ms. Warren is ready to do so. That’s good enough for me.
johnk says
but yes, I do feel that you are accurate when you say she has nothing to “gain” from endorsing now.
JimC says
It’s really early.
In 2008 Ted Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama in late January, but New Hampshire was much earlier in 2008, something like January 8. Iowa was earlier too, something like January 5.
TheBestDefense says
The value of a Warren endorsement is high when the contest is raging but diminishes as the convention approaches, unless it is a brokered convention. If it is an insider deal, I want her to either be the woman who chooses, or is the nominee.