Michelle Cottle, Maybe Next Time, Ladies: So much for the most diverse presidential field in history:
It’s impossible to know the degree to which gender factors into a candidate’s political appeal, or lack thereof, especially at the presidential level. Man or woman, winning the presidency is not merely — or even largely — a question of merit. Americans are forever seeking that indefinable spark — a secret blend of strength and likability, authority and relatability, a talent for inspiring and connecting with voters.
Ms. Warren is thought to have struggled in part because she was too professorial — too schoolmarmish, if you will — to connect with anyone beyond white college-educated women like herself. But had she focused on her up-by-the-bootstraps biography, who’s to say she wouldn’t have been slammed as inauthentic or as trying too hard? As for complaints that she was too strident or shrill or hectoring or inflexible, have any of these critics seen Bernie Sanders? Come on.
Jennifer Rubin, Why Elizabeth Warren never caught on
The headline falsely promises to answer the question. In fact, the article reveals that Ms. Rubin has not a clue why Elizabeth Warren never caught on. Not even within spitting distance of a persuasive answer. Not even a smell. Though she hints that she goes along with Michelle Cottle’s missing secret sauce theory.
OK, Then, Why Did Elizabeth Warren Never “Catch On”?
The simplest and most straightforward answer is that the thirty percent of the Democratic Party who like democratic socialism didn’t want Democratic Socialism Lite when they could, instead, choose to vote for the real thing.
Warren wanted to unite the factions, but she did not know how to do it. Bernie doesn’t want to unite the factions. So, now, it’s up to Sleepy Joe–assuming he grasps the necessity of the task and knows how to do it.