Elizabeth Warren’s many left-wing fans find it self-evident that their candidate is the most intelligent of the lot (probably true) and that her innumerable plans are just the ticket to fix our “rigged” system (a far more debatable point). In their view, concerns about Warren’s viability as a general election candidate are merely inherently sexist “likeability” questions that should be dismissed as a matter of principle. Moderates within the party are therefore urged to get with the program, check their male privilege, and support the best qualified person for the job.
It’s not that simple. The issue isn’t “likeability;” it’s identity politics. And Warren is a potential disaster in a general election in which identity will undoubtedly play an enormous role, given the nature of the Trump presidency.
The question for each candidate is whether he or she can mobilize or sway enough votes to win in 2020. If you view the election as primarily an exercise in base mobilization, why would you choose an elderly white woman over a younger person or a minority, given that these are the two categories of voters whose levels of participation are most easily raised? If, on the other hand, you think the real task is to win over likely swing voters, such as Never Trumpers, white male union members, and moderate suburban women, why would you pick a righteously angry female law professor from Harvard whose views can be easily (if not exactly accurately) described as socialism? And that doesn’t even count her “Pocahontas” red privilege episode.
Yes, Warren is a good debater. Yes, she would likely make mincemeat of Trump on the issues. Yes, given the constraints under which she would be operating, she could be a reasonably good president. But no, that doesn’t make her a winner in 2020 unless the electorate can be persuaded to vote their economic interests instead of their identities, which is incredibly unlikely.