David S. Bernstein is a contributing editor at Boston Magazine.

For Elizabeth Warren, maybe not running for president wasn’t such a bad idea after all.

One of the great disappointments for fans of the Massachusetts senator—a huge, devoted following of progressive Democrats across the country—has been watching their hero sit out the presidential contest. As Hillary Clinton struggles to clinch the nomination, and a rumpled socialist from Vermont manages to galvanize crowds of young people with a Warren-esque platform, there’s a powerful current of sadness that Warren might have just dropped her best chance to push her economic-equality agenda at the highest levels in Washington.


But now, with a Trump nomination changing the electoral landscape, it looks like they may be selling her far too short.

One possibility is that Clinton could pick Warren as her running mate as a way to throw a powerful bone to the Bernie Sanders left, putting Warren a mere heartbeat away from the Oval Office. But another, more likely prospect is now floating into view. Between Warren’s powerful fundraising chops and the potential for a Donald Trump candidacy to push Senate seats into Democratic hands, the next Senate could see a whole new power bloc with Warren at the head.

Warren’s influence is twofold. First and foremost, she’s the undisputed queen of the party’s message: Warren-esque liberalism has become the de facto tongue for most of the party’s Senate candidates, regardless of gender—just as her brand of economic populism has dominated the Democratic presidential primaries. Warren’s passions— decreasing college debt, investing in research and regulating financial institutions—have become the party’s passions.

And since winning election to the Senate in 2012, Warren has emerged as her party’s most potent ally at the operational level. She’s described by veteran Democrats as a “rock star” fundraiser—filling the boot for individual candidates as well as for the powerful Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Earlier this year, Warren sent her top staffer, Mindy Myers, to run the DSCC’s independent expenditure arm—where the big bucks flow. And now she’s gearing up for an exceptionally busy 2016 that will kick into high gear during the summer Senate recess and last well into the fall.

In a normal year, the Senate would be likely to stay in Republican hands. But now that Trump has secured the nomination, the prospect of a powerful anti-Trump turnout puts as many as a dozen Republican-held seats in play—with the possibility of electing as many as eight new female senators to join the 12 Democratic women who will return in 2017. That would give us a new Senate with a Democratic majority, a historically large bloc of women—as many as 20 on the Democratic side—and one person ready to lead them. In short, Trump could end up making Warren one of the most powerful people in the Capitol.

It would be quite a set of ironies to cap off this strange national election: While Republicans decide which cliff to leap off, Trump’s nomination could unwittingly usher into power a small army of liberal women, following Warren into battle against wealthy money men like himself. And the gate-crasher who ran for Senate in 2012 because Senate Republicans wouldn’t let her run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could soon be pulling the strings of the Senate Democrats—and bossing around the very Republicans who blocked her.

Four female senate candidates Warren has raised money for: California Attorney General Kamala Harris (top left), Illinois Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth (top right), New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan (bottom left), and former Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (bottom right). | AP Photos

For Democrats soured by Republican obstructionism during Obama’s eight years in office, the stakes couldn’t be higher. “Having the majority is critical. An example right now is what is happening to Merrick Garland,” Warren says. “The difference between majority and minority is being able to hold hearings and call votes.”

Of course, if Democrats take the Senate, it’ll be a Senate majority forged in Warren’s image. “A lot of groundwork is being laid in 2015 and 2016 for an Elizabeth Warren-style agenda to be put on the floor in 2017, if we have a Senate majority,” says Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

In other words, it’s Warren’s Senate for the taking—but first she needs to pay for it.

***

It’s no secret that Warren is now the go-to banker for Democrats in need of campaign cash. After raising an unheard-of $42 million in her 2012 campaign, she quickly turned to helping other Democrats. In just her first year, Warren raised more than $1 million for other Senate candidates, and another $1 million for the DSCC, the Boston Globe reported. And that was before her election-year “Summer of Surrogacy,” as Roll Call dubbed it. Warren routinely racked up six-figure hauls while crisscrossing the country for fundraisers for Senate candidates. In July 2014, she raised over $100,000 for Natalie Tennant at an event in West Virginia; a two-day stop in Louisville, Kentucky, netted over $330,000 for Alison Lundergan Grimes, who was running against then-Minority Leader Mitch McConnell; and visited Detroit for Gary Peters. She also traveled for incumbents threatened in reelection runs—notably Jeff Merkley in Oregon and Al Franken in Minnesota. (Both won, and are back beside Warren in a liberal bloc of senators.) Then she went back out in the fall, stumping and fundraising for Franken, Mark Udall in Colorado and Bruce Braley in Iowa. Grimes and Tennant eventually lost, but even those campaigns showed how powerful Warren’s appeal had become. Tennant didn’t want President Obama to set foot in her state during the campaign, and Grimes at one point refused to even say whether she had voted for Obama. But both stood onstage with Warren—even though they openly opposed many of her policies, including her stand on environmental issues.

Warren has continued to fundraise since then. She did one for Wisconsin’s Russ Feingold last year, and one for California’s Kamala Harris, which was held in Warren’s home state of Massachusetts, where Warren also headlined a fundraiser for the DSCC on Martha’s Vineyard. As soon as the U.S. Senate broke last week for a recess, Warren jetted off to Chicago, where she headlined a fundraiser for Illinois Senate candidate Tammy Duckworth.

In the process, Warren has acquired a formidable war chest of her own. Her “Leadership PAC,” called PAC for a Level Playing Field, doled out $220,000 in direct contributions to Senate candidates during the 2014 election cycle, and another $100,000 to state Democratic Party committees. Heading into this year’s cycle, Level Playing Field had a little over a million dollars stashed away, after doling out another quarter-million last year. And that’s almost certain to grow. An inner member of Team Warren tells me that the PAC held an event last November to “get the gang back together” as efforts ramp up for 2016.

But the amounts she can give directly pale next to what she can raise. (Direct donations aside, the PAC is primarily to cover costs for her travel to speak at fundraisers.) And the scary thing is, Warren’s influence and name recognition are so powerful that she doesn’t even need to get on a plane to get the money flowing. She just needs to hit send.

When Warren sends a fundraising email, it’s a big deal. Warren’s campaign staff tracks how much money is generated by her email appeals, but won’t go on the record to quote specific dollar amounts. (In the past, she’s routinely touted email blasts that bring in $50,000 per pop.) Democratic insiders—including several who raise money for candidates themselves—speak with awe about the impact of Warren’s email fundraisers. “Anecdotally,” says DSCC press secretary Lauren Passalacqua “whenever Elizabeth Warren is going to send out an email on your behalf, that’s a get, for sure.”

Already in the 2016 election cycle, Warren has sent fundraising emails on behalf of 10 candidates, including seven who are challenging Republican incumbents or running for open seats. They are Russ Feingold, who is looking to return to the Senate in Wisconsin; Kamala Harris, the favorite for an open California seat; Tammy Duckworth, challenging Mark Kirk in Illinois; Maggie Hassan, the New Hampshire governor locked in a blockbuster clash with budding Republican superstar Kelly Ayotte; Jason Kander, whose bid against Roy Blunt in Missouri now seems far less quixotic; Catherine Cortez Masto, Harry Reid’s chosen successor in Nevada; and former Governor Ted Strickland, who is fighting a nail-biter with Ohio incumbent Rob Portman.

That list will grow after Democrats choose their nominees in other states; Warren has avoided taking sides among competing Democrats in Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland and Pennsylvania. Maryland and Pennsylvania held their primaries last month; Iowa in June and Florida in August. (Louisiana has no Senate primaries.)

Certainly we saw strong first-quarter fundraising numbers posted recently from many of those Warren-approved candidates. Passalacqua points out that several of them outraised the Republican incumbents they are challenging. Duckworth raised $2.1 million to Kirk’s $1.2 million; Feingold raised $2.2 million to Ron Johnson’s $2 million; Hassan raised $2.3 million to Ayotte’s $2.2 million; and Kander took in $1.3 million, just over Blunt’s $1.25 million. Strickland, though outpaced for the quarter by Portman, had his best effort with $1.5 million.

Flipping a Senate majority, from its current 46-54 deficit, has been considered a crapshoot. But a Trump nomination could slide a whole host of contests into Democratic hands. As the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia depicted last month, a “Trumpmare” scenario would push Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania Senate races from “Tossup” or “Lean Republican” to “Lean Democrat.” It’s easy to see why: Recent polls show Clinton beating Trump by 15 points in Pennsylvania and 19 points in New Hampshire. It’s hard to imagine that kind of lopsided drubbing wouldn’t affect the Senate races there.

That alone would get Democrats a 51-seat majority. But the Trumpmare map also puts Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio contests in play—a potential rout for the blue team. And even without Trump, the University of Virginia’s analysis throws six Senate race “Crystal Ball” ratings in the direction of Democrats. Other experts have made similar adjustments.

A brief glimpse at the upcoming electoral map shows how transformative Warren’s fundraising could be for female candidates this cycle—especially if a Trump candidacy begins to tilt the field. Just last week, Katie McGinty won a primary to challenge Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey in November. She joins Duckworth of Illinois, Harris of California, Hassan of New Hampshire and Masto of Nevada in winnable races. But an expanded map could include Patty Judge of Iowa, Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona, Deborah Ross of North Carolina and perhaps even Caroline Fayard of Louisiana. Judge, the former lieutenant governor who only recently jumped into the Iowa race, is sure to get help from Warren; Democrats see Judge’s opponent, Republican Chuck Grassley, as wounded by his role in blocking a hearing on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. Kirkpatrick, whom Warren has already endorsed and given money through Level Playing Field, is polling well against John McCain—who was caught on tape telling fundraisers that Trump’s nomination could imperil his reelection. Ross just outraised incumbent Republican Richard Burr for the past three months, as pundits are suggesting that North Carolina could tip blue in a Trump or even Ted Cruz scenario. And Fayard, a lawyer with family money, hopes to take advantage of events in Louisiana, where some pundits have moved the open seat out of the “Safe Republican” category.

That’s eight Democratic women seeking to join the 12 who will be returning to the Senate in 2017—a potentially game-changing shift even within the Democrats’ Caucus, where a little less than a third are women. Warren’s transformation of the Senate could usher in not only a majority, but a particularly Warren-esque revolution: Democratic, female and progressive.

Asked if she sees herself as a potential leader of Democratic women in the Senate, Warren demurs but does not deny. “I believe we will have more women, committed to a set of issues,” she says. “Our democracy is stronger when the people in Congress look like the people of America.”

Warren’s former chief of staff Mindy Myers, now running the DSCC’s independent-expenditure fundraising, seems to have a clear idea, however. The same mid-April day I was interviewing Warren for this article, the DSCC established a new joint fundraising committee, “Women On The Road 2016.” It will raise money to distribute to eight female Senate candidates: Duckworth, Hassan, Judge, Kirkpatrick, Masto, McGinty, Ross and incumbent Patty Murray, who is up for reelection in Washington state. While there are no specific plans yet for Warren to work on behalf of that fund, discussions about it are expected to take place soon.

***



One lesson of 2014: Money isn’t enough. Warren’s fundraising didn’t stop the Democrats from losing their majority in what was, she acknowledges, “a brutal year” for the party. Still, it’s worth noting that several of Warren’s favorites bucked the national pro-GOP trend that year. Merkley, Franken and Peters won. So did Jeanne Shaheen, who fended off Warren’s old nemesis Scott Brown in New Hampshire—with plenty of help from Warren. That effort didn’t go unnoticed: her colleagues viewed her as their pipeline to grass-roots contributions and volunteer energy. For Warren’s Superwoman role in the 2014 elections, Minority Leader Harry Reid immediately rewarded her with a newly created position—strategic policy adviser to the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee—in order to elevate the freshman to a leadership post. Two months later, Ohio’s Sherrod Brown named Warren ranking member of his Banking Committee’s Economic Policy Subcommittee.

Elizabeth Warren’s most powerful appeal: She’s the voice of the Democratic party. | Getty

And this year, Warren could be rising in power just as a leadership vacuum is opening among Senate Democrats—and particularly those progressive populists. Reid is retiring, and his expected successor, Chuck Schumer of New York, is considered suspect due to his friendly relationship with Wall Street. Also retiring are two of the leading women of the Democratic Caucus: Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Barbara Boxer of California. Warren’s only real rival in terms of national following would be Sanders, whose historic presidential run has built a loyal following outside of Washington. But, as Barney Frank has made abundantly clear in recent public tirades, Sanders’ progressive Capitol colleagues have always looked at him as a party of one, not a leader or even a team player. He became a Democrat only last year, and has publicly conceded that he did so only for self-interest; he continues to list himself as an Independent for Senate business. And Sanders isn’t doing himself any favors with them by criticizing what he calls a “rigged” nominating system of superdelegates—which includes all Democratic senators. His failure to help raise money for down-ballot Democrats hasn’t helped either.

Warren’s most powerful appeal is simply this: She’s the voice of the party. Even more important than connecting Democratic candidates with donors, Warren has connected them with a message that resonates with the base. Even in the disappointing 2014 election, Warren reminds me, Democratic candidates won when “they got out there and they fought for what they believed in.” She might have said: her issues, based on economic populism.

And now she has allies to call on. Green, of PCCC, proudly ticks off examples of Senate candidates on board with her agenda: Feingold is a longtime friend of progressives. Strickland “was talking about taxing the rich way back in 2006.” Masto and Harris, as their states’ attorneys general, fought with Warren for better terms in the 2012 foreclosure settlement deal, among other battles.

Even beyond the traditional Democratic base, the country seems to have moved in Warren’s direction. Indeed, Warren’s issues have come to dominate the very presidential nomination contest that she has distanced herself from. She has coyly refused to endorse in the Democratic primary, instead periodically praising Sanders on issues, allowing her supporters to carry her message forward through another messenger. Remember, Sanders’ campaign took off only after progressive organizations finally gave up on their months-long attempts to draft Warren into the race.

Meanwhile, she has reportedly kept an open line to Clinton’s campaign—as Clinton has embraced debt-free college, expanded Social Security and Wall Street regulation along her way to her likely nomination. A Wall Street Journal headline of last July said “Hillary Clinton Rebuffs Liberals’ Push to Break Up Banks”; by November the Associated Press headline was “Hillary Clinton vows she’s willing to break up big banks.” Clinton even recently said, in a March debate, that she intends to seek Warren’s advice on appointments within her administration.

All the while, Warren’s strategy has kept her economic populists engaged and believing. And where will that boiling-over energy—and money, and volunteer time—go if Clinton becomes the nominee? Well, the answer was obvious in the April 14 debate between Clinton and Sanders. On nearly every point of domestic policy, the real difference between the two was over what could be accomplished by the current Congress.

The logical next effort, then, for both sides of the primary divide, would be to change Congress. Which is exactly the message they have been, and will be, hearing from Warren — perhaps the one person heeded eagerly by both the Bernie Bros. and the Hillary women. She is all set to unite and rally them all behind a populist, feminist Senate takeover.

“She’s one of the most mission-driven politicians I’ve ever worked with, says Doug Rubin, top strategist for Warren’s 2012 campaign, who says he speaks with Warren regularly. “It always starts with driving her agenda: income inequality and rebuilding the middle class.”

What she couldn’t have known was how perfectly the GOP might play into her plans. If Trump’s numbers don’t improve, the presidential contest could quickly become a foregone conclusion—pushing attention further toward the action in the Senate races.

And, quite possibly, toward making Elizabeth Warren the new Queen of the Capitol.