Wednesday, 12 Dec 2018

Has Elizabeth Warren reached its peak too early?

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) Is considered to be one of the top contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, but woke up this week after an unwelcome advice from her local newspaper: -being you do not show up.

"Warren missed his moment in 2016 and there is enough to be skeptical about his potential candidacy in 2020. Although Warren was re-elected, his margin of victory in November suggests a limit to his popularity," writes the editorial board of Boston Globe.

The board added that she may already be a political figure too controversial to face President Trump.

As if that were not enough, the New York Times re-examined Warren's DNA test in an article on Thursday, explaining how the people around the Senator fear that her plans to prove her Native American heritage will happen.

Warren's name has been swayed in discussions about possible presidential candidates for more than three years now, dating back to the moment when outside figures in the Democratic Party saw Hillary Clinton's weaknesses and wanted the other candidate to go to the polls. present in the 2016 elections. Despite the efforts of Draft Warren, the Massachusetts elder missed the Democratic primary, leaving a void that Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has filled.

The problem with early favorites is that they have more time to lose their luster. The proof is given in the recent presidential primaries. Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani was the primary favorite for the 2008 GOP presidential election, and Hillary Clinton was the presumed candidate for Democrats. Neither became the candidate. Even in 2012, Mitt Romney, who had finally gotten the GOP nomination that year, was struggling to get rid of a number of opponents who had all progressed in the polls before they broke. collapse quickly. And in 2016, although no one could have predicted the rise of Trump, the big name of the Republicans pretty much at this point in the process was Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

The comparisons of Warren to Hillary Clinton are hard to ignore, although the two main attributes are that they are ambitious women with similar hair colors, vilified by the right-wing media. Ideologically, Warren is far more left than Clinton and the two diverge on many issues, including free trade and national security.

Yet the same stories perpetuated about Clinton in the mainstream media and on peripheral sites are now applied to Warren. She is one of the favorite subjects of the right-wing conspiracy theory website, Infowars, which does not seem to write enough about Warren's DNA. Something about Warren (his Y chromosome) seems to offend those same ones who have scorned Clinton. And even Warren's liberal base saddens her when she supports Clinton against Sanders in the primaries.

Rebecca Traister, a journalist specializing in gender equality, published an article about Warren's Hillaryification in New York Magazine last year.

"The integration of this woman cartoon, which calls the American lizard brain scorn for Tracy Flicks of the world, hand in the air – the kind that takes stubbornly pragmatic ways to the advancement , who will say anything to get ahead, who invites policy experts to dinner to learn what they do not know in a way that seems like an effort – manages to discredit Warren gently but effectively at the same time with a right that considers ambitious women as threatening and ugly, and a left that could consider its approach as false, compromised and emblematic of the repugnant manners of the establishment. "

The problem for Warren to be announced as the savior of the left and not being up to the first time she was called is that it took several years for people to separate her, so that she makes mistakes that tarnish the light. around her and for others to rise in the meantime – personalities such as Senator Kamala D. Harris (California) and Representative Beto O. Rourke (Tex.).

Warren continues to vote nearly 10% in battlefield states, behind former vice president Joe Biden, Sanders and Harris.

But Warren, who is 69 years old, must face the denigration of his candidacy, but it must also face the same ageism as Biden and Sanders. More and more, there is growing speculation that a charismatic, fresh-faced candidate would be the perfect jewel for Trump, himself 72 years old.

Warren has not yet announced whether she plans to run for president, but has decided to run for president, including strengthening her foreign policy credentials in a speech last week criticizing the handling of international affairs. by Trump.

The question of whether Warren can overcome the obstacles on his way to becoming the Democratic candidate is far from clear, but reading the newspaper that many of his constituents read by wondering whether or not she should run as a candidate can not be a good start.


Post Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: