Elizabeth Warren’s dilemma: Should she endorse Clinton, or Sanders?

[Proserpina]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/01/15/elizabeth-warrens-dilemma-should-she-endorse-clinton-or-sanders/

With Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders locked in an intensifying struggle over Iowa and New Hampshire, the chatter among Democrats is turning to a big unknown: Which candidate will Elizabeth Warren endorse?

A Warren endorsement of Clinton before Iowa could help her stave off the Sanders challenge by signaling to more liberal voters who are intrigued by Sanders’ candidacy that she should be seen as sufficiently progressive on Warren’s core issues, such as Wall Street oversight and accountability. On the other hand, a Warren endorsement of Sanders before Iowa could help Sanders pull off an upset there, which would likely be followed by a New Hampshire victory, possibly shifting the dynamic in later contests, though she’d still be the favorite. It’s hard to know how much influence a Warren endorsement would have. But it might have some.

Which candidate will Warren endorse, if either? If she does endorse, when will she do it? My conversations with a number of Democrats about this decision suggest it may prove more complicated for Warren than it might seem at first glance. On the one hand, it would seem to make sense that Warren might endorse Sanders. The Vermont Senator backs a similar agenda to Warren’s — such as breaking up the big banks and reinstating a new Glass Steagall that builds a wall between commercial and investment banking, and a $15-per-hour minimum wage. Clinton doesn’t support those things. What’s more, Warren and Sanders both share an emphasis on the notion that financial institutions have too much power, and have been able to rig the rules of the market in their favor — rules that need a fundamental overhaul, along with a substantial stiffening of oversight and accountability. Clinton stresses this, too, but it’s not as fundamental and central to her vision as it is to that of Warren and Sanders.

On the other hand, Politico reported this the other day:

People close to Warren’s political advisers in Boston say an endorsement of Clinton is far more likely than one of Sanders at this point. Clinton allies have long pointed to a 2013 letter that Warren signed with other female Democratic senators urging the former secretary of state to get into the race.

It turns out that a Warren endorsement of Clinton would not be all that surprising, either, even though Clinton is widely described by progressives as too close to Wall Street. As Mike Konczal has detailed, there is actually substantial overlap between Warren’s agenda and Clinton’s Wall Street plan, too...a Warren endorsement of Clinton could hardly be dismissed as a sellout of her own priorities. Still, Warren is also surely mindful that a Clinton endorsement would disappoint a lot of Sanders supporters — who make up her own national base, too — as well as progressive groups that have backed the Vermont Senator.

**********************************************

Also, if Warren were to wait until Clinton looks like she’s on her way to wrapping up the nomination before backing her, it might not be as disappointing to Sanders backers, since Warren would not have played any direct role in arresting the Sanders surge. Or if she were to wait that long before backing Sanders (which seems less likely at this point), she would not have played a role in complicating the establishment pick’s march to the nomination.

So, you see, it’s complicated.

[LiberalElite]

1. I'm not hanging any hopes on Warren eom

[Proserpina]

4. I don't think she will commit until after the convention chooses the nominee

It's much safer for her that way. And Elizabeth is a cautious lady.

I don't think she'd sign on for VP, either, which would be a shame. The revolution is going to need a successor leader in the wings, and she's the best fit for the job.

[LiberalElite]

8. Two New Englanders? I'm not so sure but

VP speculation is premature anyway IMO.

[djean111]

2. A Warren endorsement of Hillary would not affect my support for Bernie one little bit.

I would figure that it was political, and keep supporting Bernie.

[cantbeserious]

3. This Citizen Is Voting Bernie - Warren Or Not

eom

[oregonjen]

5. Listening to this speech she gave sure sounds like Bernie endorsement is coming soon

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1044485

[libdem4life]

6. I'm beginning to get that endorsements are less for the candidate than for the endorser.

Kind of a self-congratulating act of celebrity of some sort or other. My take...in the case of any candidate...is that if someone is so undecided that some celebrity makes up their mind, they likely were so uninformed in the first place that they would not take the time to go vote.

Unions and such are different. They wield power over a number of members...just as large political organizations. For instance, not everyone votes like their parents, but they can't help but be influenced heavily due to the close relationship.

Who knows?

In this context, I think EW would be best off to stay neutral...entirely until the GE...then work like the dickens for whomever we choose.

[mmonk]

7. Complicated by political standards yes.

Those however, are not the standards I adhere to. I'm more right vs wrong according to the evidence and what is moral given the facts.

[SheilaT]

9. She should not endorse anyone

until it's clear who the nominee is going to be.

I would be very, very disappointed in her if she endorsed Hillary, but it wouldn't change my mind about Bernie being the far better candidate.

[dae]

10. Agree 100%, it serves no purpose but to alienate

one camp or another. Bernie supporters should know who she would support.

[DemocraticWing]

11. If I were her I would wait until just before Super Tuesday.

I think we'll have a decent grasp of the race then: either Clinton will be preparing her knockout blow after winning 3 or 4 of the early states, or Sanders has surged (winning IA, NH, and at least one of NV and SC) and is looking to springboard his momentum nationally.

If Clinton's about to win on Super Tuesday, Warren can get behind her at a time that is: 1) less disappointing for liberals 2) still early enough for her to say she helped Hillary out somehow

If Bernie's about to breakout and push toward the nomination, Warren can get behind him at a pivotal point at the race and help him secure the nomination.

This is when Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama in 2008.

[Bernblu]

12. The best play for her is to wait until the nomination is decided

If Clinton defeats Bernie she will need Warren to help get the progressives back on board for the GE. If Bernie wins the nominations he would value her endorsement and offer her the VP spot. She would probably refuse it because she probably wants to remain the Senate.

The worst possible play for her would be to endorse Clinton before the nomination is decided. It would deflate support for her from the progressives who back Bernie. She would lose her star quality and become just another establishment pol.

[delrem]

13. I take Elizabeth Warren at her word.

I can't imagining her endorsing Hillary Clinton before Hillary has won it fair and square. Because they are too much at odds.
_______________

But here is the thing that stands out in my mind, that of the Dem "Progressive Caucus", a whole shitload of them clambered on-board the Hillary Clinton campaign months ago, in contrast to an extreme few who've had the guts to put their head up above the wall and take aim and shoot for Bernie Sanders. I can't really say that I'll respect them, if they don't do so and do it now, though.

It isn't just Elizabeth Warren who has to stand up and be counted. We all have to stand up and be counted or we might as well just slink away and hope it isn't catching.