I know I'm being presumptuous as in theory we don't know that she wants to endorse HRC yet. But from what even the Bernie team says it seems that if she were going to have endorsed Bernie she would have done so long ago.
Many Bernie supporters see it as a no-brainer for her to go with Bernie but she won't for two reasons.
1. Warren may believe very strongly in her cause but she is also a pragmatist. HRC is the more likely nominee and so endorsing her will get her more leverage with Hil to shape her campaign and platform later.
2. Despite the way HRC is spoken of by Bernie and his friends, Hillsborough Farms-ok, I got all these Hillary nicknames from Amy Schumer at HRC's birthday party-actually has a strong finance reform and bank oversight plan that is in line with many of Warren''s objectives.
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/8/9482521/hillary-clinton-financial-reform
In fact, other than bringing back Glass-Steagall, HRC has more overlap with Warren than Bernie does who on a number of issues is big on rhetoric but light on policy details. Hillary made a great point on Rachel Maddow last night-the devil is in the details.
Of course, this is why Bernie has so little understanding of details-he's a Saint.
Greg Sargent does a good job at considering the complex calculus Warren faces on whether to endorse HRC now or later.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/01/15/elizabeth-warrens-dilemma-should-she-endorse-clinton-or-sanders/
"Clinton’s plan would defend and build on the Dodd Frank Wall Street reform law. Clinton has pledged to fight any GOP efforts to weaken financial reform and would preserve that law’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a Warren brainchild. Clinton would toughen up oversight over financial institutions in ways Warren has called for, though Clinton would not go quite as far as Warren in this regard. Clinton’s plan offers details on how she would rein in the sort of shadow banking that led to the financial crisis, also an important Warren priority."
"All of which is to say that 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."
"There is also the question of how Warren can best continue to wield influence over the policy debate. Since Clinton is favored to win the nomination, a Warren endorsement — particularly one before Iowa — might earn the Massachusetts Senator a coveted role in the campaign and a direct line to Clinton’s most important advisers. Warren could then plausibly help shape the Clinton campaign’s general election message around inequality and Wall Street accountability, which would boost her influence over the political debate throughout 2016."
Yet some observers think Warren maximizes that influence by holding off on any endorsement as long as she can.
“The longer she holds out, the more it will push all the candidates, especially those who might not be as good on her issues, to be as strong as possible on them,” Neil Sroka, a spokesman for the progressive group Democracy for America, tells me. “She holds on to that power as long as the candidates continue to vie for her endorsement. In turn, that makes the candidates better for progressives. Everything about Warren suggests that this is her ultimate concern: how do we get our Democratic nominee to be as strong as possible in the fight against income inequality and for Wall Street accountability?” So holding out could keep Clinton worried about shoring up her progressive flank."
"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."
Of course, the problem with this is that while she maximizes one type of leverage she gives away the other leverage of making Hillary so grateful that Warren will have a better seat at the table with Hillary's policy team during the general.
If she waits till after Iowa and NH then effectively Warren is throwing Hillary a life preserver after she's already out of the water. This surely won't endear her to Hillary as much as if she sent it now before Iowa where she could then neuter the Bernie argument that Hillary is not wholly 'trustable'-it's amazing how useful Kevin McCarthy's bizarre neologism has proved-on matters of finance and Wall St reform and oversight.
So it's a dilemma for Warren-what kind of leverage does she prize more? But it seems to me that she has made Hillary wait so long that she has already more than made her point. The negative leverage of pushing her to the Left has probably been maximized.
If she endorses Hillary soon then she can reap the benefits of having made Hillary wait but also the benefits of having HRC's full gratitude for neutering the Bernie criticism.
She might squeeze a little more negative leverage by waiting three more weeks but then lose a lot of the positive leverage of having had HRC's back when it was really needed.
What's clear is that Warren doesn't have much more time to decide which way she wants to go.
Many Bernie supporters see it as a no-brainer for her to go with Bernie but she won't for two reasons.
1. Warren may believe very strongly in her cause but she is also a pragmatist. HRC is the more likely nominee and so endorsing her will get her more leverage with Hil to shape her campaign and platform later.
2. Despite the way HRC is spoken of by Bernie and his friends, Hillsborough Farms-ok, I got all these Hillary nicknames from Amy Schumer at HRC's birthday party-actually has a strong finance reform and bank oversight plan that is in line with many of Warren''s objectives.
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/8/9482521/hillary-clinton-financial-reform
In fact, other than bringing back Glass-Steagall, HRC has more overlap with Warren than Bernie does who on a number of issues is big on rhetoric but light on policy details. Hillary made a great point on Rachel Maddow last night-the devil is in the details.
Of course, this is why Bernie has so little understanding of details-he's a Saint.
Greg Sargent does a good job at considering the complex calculus Warren faces on whether to endorse HRC now or later.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/01/15/elizabeth-warrens-dilemma-should-she-endorse-clinton-or-sanders/
"Clinton’s plan would defend and build on the Dodd Frank Wall Street reform law. Clinton has pledged to fight any GOP efforts to weaken financial reform and would preserve that law’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a Warren brainchild. Clinton would toughen up oversight over financial institutions in ways Warren has called for, though Clinton would not go quite as far as Warren in this regard. Clinton’s plan offers details on how she would rein in the sort of shadow banking that led to the financial crisis, also an important Warren priority."
"All of which is to say that 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."
"There is also the question of how Warren can best continue to wield influence over the policy debate. Since Clinton is favored to win the nomination, a Warren endorsement — particularly one before Iowa — might earn the Massachusetts Senator a coveted role in the campaign and a direct line to Clinton’s most important advisers. Warren could then plausibly help shape the Clinton campaign’s general election message around inequality and Wall Street accountability, which would boost her influence over the political debate throughout 2016."
Yet some observers think Warren maximizes that influence by holding off on any endorsement as long as she can.
“The longer she holds out, the more it will push all the candidates, especially those who might not be as good on her issues, to be as strong as possible on them,” Neil Sroka, a spokesman for the progressive group Democracy for America, tells me. “She holds on to that power as long as the candidates continue to vie for her endorsement. In turn, that makes the candidates better for progressives. Everything about Warren suggests that this is her ultimate concern: how do we get our Democratic nominee to be as strong as possible in the fight against income inequality and for Wall Street accountability?” So holding out could keep Clinton worried about shoring up her progressive flank."
"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."
Of course, the problem with this is that while she maximizes one type of leverage she gives away the other leverage of making Hillary so grateful that Warren will have a better seat at the table with Hillary's policy team during the general.
If she waits till after Iowa and NH then effectively Warren is throwing Hillary a life preserver after she's already out of the water. This surely won't endear her to Hillary as much as if she sent it now before Iowa where she could then neuter the Bernie argument that Hillary is not wholly 'trustable'-it's amazing how useful Kevin McCarthy's bizarre neologism has proved-on matters of finance and Wall St reform and oversight.
So it's a dilemma for Warren-what kind of leverage does she prize more? But it seems to me that she has made Hillary wait so long that she has already more than made her point. The negative leverage of pushing her to the Left has probably been maximized.
If she endorses Hillary soon then she can reap the benefits of having made Hillary wait but also the benefits of having HRC's full gratitude for neutering the Bernie criticism.
She might squeeze a little more negative leverage by waiting three more weeks but then lose a lot of the positive leverage of having had HRC's back when it was really needed.
What's clear is that Warren doesn't have much more time to decide which way she wants to go.
Elizabeth Warren is the VP candidate of choice for either Bernie or Hillary. For Bernie she brings the female vote, for Hillary she brings the progressive vote. No need for her to endorse either candidate in the primaries.
ReplyDeleteI doubt Warren would be interested.
ReplyDeleteIf she wants to increase her influence-which she does care about so she can advocate her issues-it'd be smarter for her to do it before primary is over so her endorsement would actually help put to bed the myth she isn't strong enough on finance reform.
I mean the myth that HRC isn't.
ReplyDelete