Elizabeth Warren Wouldn’t Be 2016's Obama, But She Could Be Its John Edwards [View all]

[Capt. Obvious]

....

Instead, Warren’s scores look a lot more like Edwards’s in the early stages of the 2008 campaign. He was at 63 among Democrats and 50.8 among all voters, according to Quinnipiac’s survey in February 2006. Both of these are within two degrees of Warren.

Edwards, of course, didn’t win. But he did appear to move the conversation, highlighting the issue of inequality though his “Two Americas” trope. He filled the populist gap and, in doing so, forced the field to the left. The rest of the field came around to Edwards on the economic stimulus, the minimum wage and his reservations with a free-trade agreement with South Korea.

OnTheIssues.org, which ranks candidates’ ideology based on their public policy statements, shows that Clinton and Obama saw their economic liberalism scores rise between January 2007 and January 2008. On a scale of 0 to 100, Clinton became more liberal by 18 points, while Obama’s became more liberal by 10 points. By the end of the campaign, both of their absolute scores matched Edwards’s.

....

In other words, Warren would have a receptive audience. She probably wouldn’t win the nomination, but — like Edwards — she could help to shape the policy debate.

538

That alone is why she should run.