With Elizabeth Warren having announced her departure from the Democratic presidential race on March 5, the hunt for the Democratic vote is left with Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders as its two major contenders.
For many, this was an obvious decision after her subpar performances in the primary. In the South Carolina primaries, she came in fifth place and showed that she did not have the vote of the African American community. She also saw mediocre support in New Hampshire, where she came in fourth. By Super Tuesday her fate had solidified.
Throughout the race she had some concrete ideas and tried to prove that she was not just any other presidential candidate, but stood as a beacon of hope for many of her supporters who were hoping for a female president. She also diluted the feared narrative that women are less electable than men.
Warren focused her campaign on economic issues, including proposing a wealth tax on the wealthiest 75,000 families to partially fund universal childcare, student loan debt relief, the Green New Deal and Medicare for All.
At a time where there are many speculations as to why Warrens fate ended the way it has, here are three theories as to why her once soaring campaign plummeted.
The first reason for Warrens downfall can be attributed to the ambitions of one of her most compelling promises, Medicare for All. Medicare for All bared the promise that she would give everyone good health insurance and cut their healthcare costs to nearly zero without increasing middle-class taxes one penny. The problem for many Americans when it came to this policy was the sustainability aspect. Although she said that middle class Americans would no longer pay health premiums or copays and would also not pay any new taxes to replace those costs, they would pay taxes on whatever extra take-home pay they would receive in this new system. This caused many Americans to question where she would get the money to sustain a policy like Medicare for All, long-term. As everything in the economy has a domino effect, more people started wondering who or what would be affected as collateral damage. Not to mention it seemed odd for someone like Warren who initially considered herself a capitalist, and not a socialist to endorse such a leftist idea.
Another reason as to why her campaign fell through is because she was seen as a risky choice. Yes, even though Warren provided a new face for the liberal template that voters were looking for in that she was a woman and was not as old as some of the other candidates, Warren lacked that “je ne sais quoi” or that “wow factor” candidates were looking for someone to go against Donald Trump. If Warren’s campaign had been clearer and more straight forward, she could have done better. In the end, Warren’s campaign shared several resemblance to Kamala Harris’ campaign, in that their mission was not made clear enough to voters.
Warren also lost votes due to her decision to staying off television. This was because of her belief that spending only gets a campaign a temporary rush, and voters would forget seeing the ad within a matter of weeks. With this idea, Warren not only missed a chance to solidify her platform, but she missed a chance to connect with her voters. Results show that through the ad campaigns, her fellow campaigners gained up to 10 points.
Though she was a great candidate and brought many relatable ideas to the table, the reality is that this election is looking for more than just a role model for people, but for someone who can go up against Trump. Warren’s platform just did not bring the numbers, the clarity nor the precision the Democratic platform needed.
Graphic by Patrick Higgins| The Oswegonian
