As a scientist, I pretty much hate the discussion of electability. This is because electability is not something we can mathematically measure, so believing that we can accurately measure it leads to a false sense that we can identify the “safest” candidate. This, in turn, often leads to people making assumptions and decisions that end up being wrong, and after an election, we don’t get to repeat that particular experiment.

I also hate it because the Democratic Party’s conventional wisdom about what makes a candidate most electable - being center to right of center (when the definition of center has been dragged significantly rightward by Republicans) - is clearly flawed. We have almost exclusively run moderate to conservative Democrats until the last couple of years, in my state of Iowa as well as nationally. In that time, we have lost far more often than we have won.

If following flawed conventional wisdom, however, wasn’t bad enough, the Democratic party establishment at state and national levels continues to actively marginalize, refuse to support, and/or sometimes sabotage candidates and policies that are progressive. This is not surprising since all large organizations and power structures are highly resistant to change. Democrats working at cross purposes with progressives are by and large not bad folks, they are simply blind believers in their own rightness who fail to question group think.

So, despite hating the topic, I feel I need to engage since this particular debate represents a major danger to party unity and an eventual win.

The Big Picture:

The data and our experience demonstrate that there is little or no evidence, or even contradictory evidence, that a moderate Democrat will be more likely to win than a Progressive one in our current political environment or that men are more likely to win than women.

Do not fall into the trap of choosing a presidential candidate based on flawed conventional wisdom about electability or because you fear they will be attacked by Republicans. Republicans will dishonestly and viciously attack any Democrat that is our nominee and we need to have their back no matter who they are.

Unfortunately, progressives are the candidates too often targeted by “moderate” and “establishment” Democrats, as well as the big Democratic moneyed interests, to be defeated in a primary. Obama is trying to convince the establishment not to be afraid of and undermine Elizabeth Warren if she is our nominee. Read about that here. This may in part be because he sees her as his protégé. As a Warren supporter I should like this, but I most decidedly do not for three reasons.

First, Bernie Sanders is an amazing human being who has been central to the fight against the wealth gap and other injustices in our system. He is fighting passionately for the large structural changes we need and he brings energy and integrity to the party.

Next, I believe that the most powerful Democrats and Democratic leaders have an ethical responsibility to remain neutral in a primary.

Finally, many of these same Democrats created a massive amount of hard feelings by loudly, sometimes condescendingly, supporting Hillary Clinton while at the same time dishonestly attacking Bernie Sanders in 2016. Yes, I know there were unjust attacks from both sides. That still doesn’t make it smart or right. Wrongly, Obama has said he would speak up if needed to defeat Bernie. Read about those comments here.

In my opinion, regardless of his reasons for that, it is madness as a party leader to threaten to deliberately undermine one of our presidential candidates. Why would Obama imagine that Bernie’s supporters would enthusiastically rally around any other Democratic candidate if he does that?

Word to the wise, Mr. Former President. Respect the primary voters and do not put your thumb on the scale.

Why Elizabeth Warren:

I respect all the candidates and believe any can and will win if every person of good faith does their part. I must admit, however, to loving Elizabeth a bit more and would argue she is one of the candidates who can best help us achieve the large structural changes in our economic and social systems (the two being intimately connected) that are needed.

So, taking nothing away from the other candidates, I will provide my arguments as to why Elizabeth Warren is as or more likely to win against Trump in November as any other Democratic candidate and would make an exceptional, transformational president. Full disclosure, I passionately want to see a Progressive Woman as President.

Defeating Donald Trump:

In repeated polls, Elizabeth like all the other top Democratic candidates defeats Donald Trump.

They all hold him to around 40%, and the margin of the win correlates strongly with name recognition, something we can easily control and further increase in Warren’s case. [You would be amazed to know how many people don’t know who she is.]

Being a woman:

71% of Americans report they would vote for a woman for president.

2016 demonstrates that a woman can readily win the popular vote, and Democrats are even stronger now than in 2016.

In addition, studies demonstrate that the swing states that gave Trump the Electoral College (by a thin margin) are just as likely to support a woman as states Hillary won.

Examples of how her campaign approach can win:

Elizabeth Warren is the only Democrat who has beaten a popular incumbent Republican (Scott Brown) in a statewide race in the last 25 years. [Imagine what she could do to an unpopular Republican.]

This made her the first female Senator from the state of Massachusetts . [I know, I was surprised too.]

. [I know, I was surprised too.] She was down by double digits, used her approach of developing plans, explaining them to the voters, and connecting personally with as many people as she could, and won by nine points.

This is not the only example of her using intelligence, patience and persistence to win despite strong political headwinds. Read about her successful efforts to get the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) established before being in the Senate. She did this despite having no real political connections in D.C.

of her using intelligence, patience and persistence to win despite strong political headwinds. her successful efforts to get the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) established before being in the Senate. She did this despite having no real political connections in D.C. Her presidential campaign continues to use this successful approach – create plans , explain them to the people in simple and powerful ways (do a browser search “Elizabeth Warren and explain plans”), and connect with people on a very personal level.

, explain them to the people in simple and powerful ways (do a browser search “Elizabeth Warren and explain plans”), and on a very personal level. To date, she has hugged and done selfies with over 100,000 people, nearly all of them complete strangers whom nevertheless she cared about deeply.

Being a Progressive:

The energy since 2016 has been with progressive Democratic candidates – women, African Americans, Latinx, Native Americans, Muslims and LGBTQ+. The very candidates the Democratic establishment continues to argue are less electable.

In 2017, we started winning significantly more special elections than in previous years. In the 15 special legislative elections to pit at least one Democrat against at least one Republican, 12 saw a net swing toward the Democrats.

In 2018 (a midterm year), we flipped 40 House seats! Again, many of the winning candidates were strong progressive Democrats who won despite often receiving less support from the Democratic Establishment.

Using volunteer-based events (like door knocking) in early and super Tuesday states as a metric for the ground game and higher supporter enthusiasm, the TOTAL number of events is Biden (43), Buttigieg (187), Sanders (431), and Warren (326); for the SUPER TUESDAY states alone it is Biden (5), Buttigieg (16), Sanders (223), and Warren (176).

Using fundraising as another metric of enthusiasm, the progressive candidates have had significantly more individual donors than the moderate candidates and are raising as much or in some cases considerably more money.

Elizabeth Warren is in the top tier despite the fact that none of her events are fundraisers and none of her calls to supporters have been to ask for money. Let me repeat that – not one second of Elizabeth Warren’s campaign time is spent fundraising . It is about talking to the people and convincing them to fight together for positive change.

. It is about talking to the people and convincing them to fight together for positive change. Studies have shown that the majority of Americans support progressive policies.

Studies have also shown that the most effective approach to get infrequent Democratic voters to the polls is by inspiring them and giving them hope. Watch her eloquent and inspiring New Year’s Eve speech in Boston as a good example of how she will achieve those goals.

as a good example of how she will achieve those goals. Authenticity is also a major factor important to Democrats. With Elizabeth Warren, it is abundantly clear that what you see is what you get.

Broad appeal and unification:

Elizabeth Warren combines the strengths of both Democratic camps – bold inspirational policies combined with detailed politically feasible strategies.

In rank choice voting, Warren gets the highest percentage when combining 1 st and 2 nd choices among all Democratic candidates.

and 2 choices among all Democratic candidates. When level of disappointment if a candidate were to win the nomination is measured, Warren has the smallest % of disappointed Democratic voters at 22%.

At a town hall in Kermit, WV, she showed her usual respect and empathy for those who attended. The headline says it all, Trump Backers Applaud Warren in the Heart of MAGA Country .

Strong problem-solving skills:

Although it is never discussed in political races, how y ou decide things and solve problems is incredibly important!

ou decide things and solve problems is incredibly important! Elizabeth’s approach to developing plans demonstrates impressive problem-solving skills: Define the problem, including identifying differential impacts on different populations. Listen most closely to the people who are affected by the problem. Listen to the independent experts about potential solutions. Write the plan to include important background information, goals, the moral framework, and the specific actions to take. Put out the plan and collect feedback. Revise the plan as needed. Above all else be sure to ignore political consultants!

Her stated priorities and strategies to overcome key political barriers as quickly as possible are also impressive. If elected president, I predict (or she has said) she: Will have written, framed, and have standing by with boxes of pens as many executive orders as possible to fix some of the damage and advance the people’s agenda as quickly as possible. Will know exactly who her cabinet and agency heads will be and will have vetted them properly. Will be ready if we win the Senate to get rid of the filibuster. Will set as her first legislative goals bills Democrats and even some Republicans will find hard to oppose – anti-corruption bills and the ultra-millionaire tax. Use the bully pulpit and our support to put pressure on recalcitrant legislators from both parties opposing these bills. Implement her brilliant, politically attractive healthcare funding plan that is paid for by ultra-millionaires and large employers, as well as by savings from negotiating drug prices and other administrative changes. Her M4A plan also has the highly attractive features of not increasing taxes on the middle class, involving no premiums, co-pays, or out-of-pocket expenses, and providing full coverage of prenatal, emergency, medical, vision, hearing, mental and behavioral, rehabilitative, reproductive, long-term, and hospice care to everyone. See her transition plan for healthcare . It is also brilliant and has been deemed by Nobel Prize winning economists to be achievable in one term. With the money from the ultra-millionaire tax in hand, she will propose in quick succession all the extremely popular programs in her agenda – student debt relief, universal childcare, climate change investment, etc. [Dear Congressperson, just try to oppose these popular initiatives if Elizabeth Warren is President and see how well that works out for you.]

She realizes the importance of monitoring progress and adjusting accordingly: It just makes common sense that one would monitor how an approach or program is working, stop doing things that don’t work, and do more things that do work. Unfortunately, she is the only presidential candidate (or politician in general) I have ever known who seems to believe in that approach. She has explicitly stated she will do so. It’s about time!!



From my vantage point as a volunteer for Warren from the start, I would argue that it is predominately the irrational fear of her healthcare plan deliberately fostered not just by Republicans, but also by mainstream media, moderate Democrats (here’s looking at you Pete) and wealthy powerful Democratic donors using right-wing talking points, that is the major barrier to people recognizing who she truly is and joining us in the fight. Her M4A would have no out-of-network doctors, just doctors and other healthcare professionals, all reimbursed by the same system. Thus, the idea that you should worry about losing your doctor with M4A is the MOST EGREGIOUS LIE (not just a difference of opinion) being circulated by supporters of the public option. There are also of course the barriers created by the systemic sexism that women continue to face.

If we as Democrats, were to just get out of our own way, nothing, particularly not Republicans, would be able to stop Elizabeth Warren.

To repeat, available data do not support the conventional wisdom that only moderate Democrats are electable or the belief that moderates are more electable than progressives and that males are more electable than females. This is simply a convenient argument for moderate men to make.

Final Thoughts:

It cannot be stressed enough that first we need to get a Democrat elected president and have control of both the House and the Senate. However, that alone will not automatically fix our problems. Because of the severity and urgency of the problems we face, we need to solve as many problems as possible as fast as we can, something significantly more likely to occur with a Progressive president like Elizabeth Warren, especially since she is explaining exactly how we do that. Successful solutions to problems in turn increase political support.

Our economic, social, and environmental problems are causing significant suffering, and some are and will kill people. Moderation is not a virtue when it lets people suffer and die for lack of action or when it timidly stands by and watches our planet burn.

Here’s Wishing Us All Love and Peace and a 2021 White House Without Donald Trump

P.S. I will be out of the country for a while, so I apologize if I do not respond to comments for awhile.