After Scott Brown won the vacant seat for U.S. senate in Massachussets, an upset that stunned many, it became clear that his seat would be a prime target for democrats come 2012, and that they would have a pretty good shot at taking that seat back. Try to think of something similar to the Doug Jones situation we have on our hands right now.
Ultimately, his challenger was law proffessor Elizabeth Warren, who had never held elected office but managed to get the nomination. While Brown started off with a lead, it kept dwindling until there was nothing left and Warren won with a pretty comfortable margin of 8%.
Since then, Elizabeth Warren has been one of the major voices of the progressive wing of the Democratic party, up there with Bernie Sanders. She has called for universal healthcare, she has endorsed a federal jobs guarantee and has been a staunch defender of a 15$/hour minimum wage.
She’s also not Bernie Sanders. While the senator from Vermont prefers to use the term «democratic socialist», Warren does call herself a capitalist, albeit what she calls «capitalism» is very similar to what Sanders has proposed: a free market economy but with tight regulations. The senator from Massachussets has also consistently voted for military budget expansions, something that most senators do but that Sanders typically doesn’t.
I’m not going to beat around the bush here: Elizabeth Warren is interested in running. She has said so publicly, so she’s at the very least thinking about it, even if a decision hasn’t been made yet. I also find it unlikely, although not impossible, that both Warren and Sanders run. I say this as a kind of disclaimer, because it’s very easy to get trapped in the narrative of vote-splitting and forget that it’s not all that likely. My reasoning for this is the Dave Weigel tweet that I mentioned a couple of entries ago (i.e. this one), the more liberal wing of the party is apparently talking amongst themselves trying to find a candidate so that there are less internal shenanigans. but I’m not ruling out the possibility of both running because, well, disagreements happen, and they could both decide that the other has no idea what they’re talking about when it comes to a path to victory, and that they are totally the guy or gal who is going to win. Just an FYI.
So, I don’t think there is much disagreement on where Warren would fit in the ideological spectrum in the primary. Slightly to the right of Sanders, far to the left of someone like Biden, and perhaps slightly to the left of someone like Kamala Harris. However, what I think is more interesting is where you draw that line. Will Warren be supportive of a jobs guarantee after all? Will she align more with Sanders on foreign policy? Will she break new ground (and I assume it would be to the left)? I guess that’s up to her campaign to decide, but she’s never really been one for changing positions on the fly.
But, assuming she doesn’t, in some way, piss the party’s base off big time, then she probably has a spot guaranteed on the primary. But would she have a chance in early states?
Yeah, definitely. She would probably do worse in Iowa than in New Hampshire, but she could have robust showings on both states. What would that look like? I’m not entirely sure, actually. If I had to guess, I’d say she can pull-off wins in both: a pretty standard 3-4% win in Iowa and a blowout of somewhere around 15% in New Hampshire are very good case scenarios for Warren. For that New Hampshire prediction to hold, she would have to put away some of the competition in Iowa, like Biden and Sanders. I say this specifically because Biden and Sanders would both have major influence in New Hampshire, as would Warren, but if she wants a blowout then she needs to put the New England competition away.
Nevada and South Carolina tend to vote somewhat erratically, but if she does as expected in both and holds the frontlines on Super Tuesday, she’s halfway there.
Now, onto the general election: where would Warren be competitive? She would certainly have appeal in rural, midwestern states like Iowa, Wisconisn or Michigan. Also, a good shot to take back Maine’s second is an honorable mention. However, I’m unsure of how she would do in southern states that are becoming crucial for democrats in recent years. There’s a competitive senate election in Mississippi for crying out loud. In 2020, midwestern states still look like the path of least resistance to a democratic win, but we’ve got a long ways to go. Bottom line is: Warren has a pretty solid map.
So, strengths and weaknesses, here we go!
STRENGTHS:
- Appeal to the progressive wing of the perty.
- Appeal in some early states.
- Warren is, in my opinion, a good debater and a charismatic speaker.
- She could have the opportunity to unify the progressive vote.
- Good general election map, with wide appeal in rust belt states.
WEAKNESSES:
- Potential to fizzle out in between Nevada and Super Tuesday, as more southern states vote.
- Less appeal with southern voters of color than other potential candidates.
- Although she has a bit more than Sanders, her appeal to the establishment wing is not very widespread.
- She has shown that she’s prone to make some gaffes, like the whole thing with the DNA test.
- Warren hasn’t proven that she can mount a strong campaign outside of Massachussets, and that could be a real problem.
On the whole, I do think Elizabeth Warren has a pretty good chance of winning if she runs, but I’m a bit more skeptical than other analysts. If her and Sanders and whoever else manage to sort everything out internally and none of it spills out into the primary, then she’s sitting pretty. However, if Sanders or Gabbard or X progressive runs simultaneously or some of the internal fighting spills onto the press, she could have a hard time. Time will tell, but it remains that Warren is one of the strongest candidates for the democratic presidential nomination in 2020.
I’m going to make a couple more of these, but be ready for this series of entries to stop. after that, you’ll get my power rankings.
Ale's blog 