Elizabeth Warren is currently running for Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat. If the first week of her campaign is any indication, this could wind up being the most interesting Senate race in the country next year, and certainly the most positive for the Democratic Party to watch. It was always going to be a tough race, because incumbent Scott Brown is generally well-liked by Massachusetts voters (even though he's a Republican), and Warren has never run for public office before in her life. So far, though, she appears to be up to the challenge. Of course, it is still very early in the race, so forming sweeping predictions or conclusions is impossible at this point. But still, it's been a very good first week for Elizabeth Warren.
Only one statewide poll is out since her announcement, and it shows her popularity spiking dramatically. Previous to her announcement, three polls put her 9-to-19 points behind Brown. The PPP poll just released shows her beating Brown 46-44 percent. That's a big bump in such a short period, but it is just one poll -- so we'll have to wait for further data before drawing solid conclusions. Her rise in support could also just be an initial spike after her announcement that she's entering the race, and could quickly fade away. Even with these caveats, the numbers certainly look better for Warren now than many were predicting even a few weeks ago.
Elizabeth Warren is a polarizing figure. Liberals love her with a fierce passion. Republicans hate her with a fiery passion. What this means is that lots and lots of money from outside the state will be pumped into this race. The reason why Democrats are going to be watching this race closer than any other Senate race next year is easy to see: this may be the only state Democrats have a good chance to pick up a seat from the Republicans. The math isn't good for Democrats this time around in the Senate, and they are in danger of losing control of the chamber next year. Warren may be the sole bright spot in this environment for Democrats.
One video clip of Warren campaigning is already making the rounds among Lefties. From Washington Monthly comes both the video and the transcript of her recent answer to critics of Obama's plans to slightly raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans:
I hear all this, you know: "Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever." No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.
This is sheer political brilliance. Democrats are notorious for not being able to do what Warren just proved she's fully capable of: Explaining an issue in plain language that resonates with the average citizen. Telling a story. Crafting a narrative. I especially like the bit about "marauding bands," since it just proves how silly the entire concept of "class warfare" truly is, in this day and age. Using the term "warfare" for a non-violent political discussion on tax policy is just so completely overblown (and disrespectful to American troops who currently are in the midst of real live warfare) -- at least until gangs armed with pitchforks and torches start appearing across the land. Which is why Warren slipping the concept of "marauding bands" into her rebuttal is so brilliant.
Elizabeth Warren's campaign was certainly helped out by President Obama's timing of his announcements on the American Jobs Act and his deficit-cutting plan. Warren has always been a voice for this true populism, and Obama pushing the issue to the forefront certainly highlights Warren's previous championing of the "little guy." Obama has apparently decided to center his entire re-election campaign on the issue of taxing millionaires, which will continue to bolster Warren's stance in her own race.
Elizabeth Warren was never the caricature Republicans labored so mightily to paint. Conservatives saw her as some sort of anti-business demon which had to be stopped before she forced Wall Street banks to (gasp!) explain their financial products without sixteen pages of fine-print type. When you put it that way, it really shows the disconnect between what Warren actually stands for and the way her Republican opponents try to pigeonhole her. Warren has fought for consumers all this time -- the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was her idea in the first place. Whether Republicans realize it or not, most voters are actually also these same consumers. This, as I said (at length, earlier in the week), is the true face of populism.
Of course, Warren could run into trouble on the campaign trail. It's only been a week, after all. She has never campaigned for anything, but she is certainly no stranger to speaking in front of people. Republicans are already trying to define her as "Professor Warren," in the hopes that Massachusetts blue-collar voters will be turned off by a Harvard professor. But Warren not only appears comfortable talking to people, she shows the ability to present her ideas and her position in a manner that voters can easily grasp. This sounds like an easy thing to do, but some politicians (especially Democrats) never quite seem to get the hang of effectively doing so. Warren has spent the last few years talking to Wall Street tycoons, and answering pointed questions in front of Congress. Picturing her comfortably taking questions from voters or debating Scott Brown is a piece of cake, after watching her being grilled by congressional Republicans who were determined to destroy her. If she continues to show such talent framing the issues correctly, the Warren/Brown race may prove to be the one which garners the most attention outside the presidential race next year.
Populism could be a winning campaign issue for Democrats, but for the past few decades that's only been a (mostly) theoretical statement -- because so few Democrats have actually ever tried to run on it (especially at the national level). This is about to be put to the test, both in Massachusetts and in the run for the White House. In fact, Warren is doing so well so quickly that Barack Obama should clear a day on his calendar in the next week or so, and get up to a campaign event for Warren in Massachusetts. The two of them would do each other enormous good by appearing together, and showing other Democrats how to run on the populist issues Obama has laid out. Populism can be a winning issue for Democrats, if they handle it correctly. Elizabeth Warren is certainly doing her best to lead by example, in this respect.
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
Joanne Bamberger: Update: My Apology to Willie Geist
Mike Lux: Scott Brown: Wall Street's Favorite
In my opinion, based in fact, it is a poorly thought out diatribe of misinformed delusion.
You are correct that they still pay gas taxes and other taxes, and state Taxes etc.
Of course we are talking about INCOME tax, not other taxes, and it is raising INCOME taxes not other taxes that Ms Elizabeth Warren is talking about.
Because Social Security Taxes, and state taxes such as Property taxes are not related to STIMULUS type spending by the FEDERAL Gov.
In fact they can actually adjust their withholding to not pay Federal Income Tax or pay very little monthly. When i made less money I did that and it was perfectly legal. I paid less each month to the Gov and then got a smaller or no refund at the end of the year.
But of course the total Uncle Sam gets remains the same, whether you pay it monthly and get a big refund or pay at the end of the year.
The rich on the other hand at the end of the year have ended up paying to Uncle Sam and NOT getting all their money back. That is considered a tax payment.
So by your logic, the lower middle class guy pays no money, the rich pay a lot of money and the Rich guy benefits more ?
Of course those are all vital things paid for by the tax payers.
Of course those are paid for by taxes collected by the STATE and not the Federal Gov according to the way our country was designed and because it is the most efficient way of doing things.
Of course she is running for a Federal Office and the discussion is about raising Federal Taxes that are not designed to pay for those things.
Of course she is using obfuscation and emotional appeal to sheeple so that they think raising FEDERAL taxes on a factory owner will get them better schools, local roads, and police and firefighters when she is intelligent enough herself to know it is base trickery.
But go on and champion that type of Obfuscation good sir!! I am sure it will poll well.
In every state there are also FEDERAL roads...they are our Interstate highway roads.
The Federal Office you choose to point out is to represent the STATE of Massachusetts...state representation on a federal level and how the laws and crafting new laws of the US Government will affect the State of Massachusetts.
Your obfuscation claim is false. It is federal funds through the earmark system that help state budgets and projects, and she will be representing her state in that regard. When they say a state "sends X amount to the federal government and receives Y amount in return" that is what is referred to.
So your claim of trickery is not exactly true, but a good try.
I was very specific. The Constitution authorizes fed involvement in roads
- Have you ever heard of the Federal Highway system? True some highways are state, but a lot of
them are Federal Highways…..paid and maintained by Federal dollars.
- College education -the Federal government gives R&D money to the State
University systems for new research. Netscape (Internet) came out of a Federal Funded
University program. Google was given Federal loan money to start their business. As
for the K-12, Government does help with some programs. The Government space
program is were many of the great technologies that you are using now came from.
-If you had a higher IQ, you could have gone to West Point Military Academy --On the
Taxpayer’s dime.
-How are you enjoying your Army retirement benefits on the taxpayer’s dime? Do you get to use the Vet hospital system too? Did you have a second career in government, so you could be a double dipper in the benefit system too?
So, keep living in your Libertarian fantasy world- until reality hits your shores.
You wrote "Have you ever heard of the Federal Highway system?"
Yes I have, did you see anywhere in my comments about roads? Did the quote I used mention roads?
So because the Feds give SOME money to STATE colleges a Factory owner that Ms Warren hypothesizes about should pay MORE tax then they already do?
What do Google, Netscape, the internet, etc have to do with a Factory owner?
Ms Warren did not talk about military retirement and no i dont get to use the VA hospital I have no VA disability.
I am not a libertarian, nor an anarchist, there are proper roles for govt at all levels. Every one needs to pay taxes. The question is How much is enough?
And to claim that a business owner should pay more to The FEDERAL Gov for police, fire and schools, is absurd obfuscation on Ms Warren's part.
Not because she might not win (she almost certainly will), or because she might cause Democrats to spontaneously find their pre-1970's souls again.
Being a Senator whose focus in on the greater economic good is to be a marginalized Senator.
I'm not convinced the good she could be doing outside of Congress will be replicable within it, nor the exposure she will get in Massachusetts will get enough play beyond, but I certainly wish her luck anyway.
You obviously have never had any in-depth dealings with the Congress, or you'd understand why I said what I said...
I won't even talk about the future and her possibly being a presidential or vice-presidential candidate in the future.
I would prefer she ran for the Presidency now, rather than accumulating a record that can be hung around her neck in the future (which ignores the historical facts around Senators running for the Presidency).
I'll just wait on that.
You're being awfully judgmental ... more than usual, even.
Dylan Ratigan made a fortune extracting wealth through the stock market and investment schemes. He understands the financial underpinnings of our slide from a practical point of view - not academic. Personally, I like them both.
He should. He even may. But that would do nothing to quell the anger and resentment throughout the rank and file of union members and progressives over in Wisconsin, where--when authentic populists marched in the snow by the tens of thousands for weeks on end to preserve collective bargaining rights (and, inter alia, access to their state Capitol, as required by their state constitution and ordered by their state courts) making international news--our President (not campaigning for re-election at the time) was absent, stayed home, and offered no message or other show of support, commenting briefly (eight words) and only once on the entire uproar.
Elizabeth Warren, fighting for a Senate seat, deserves meaningful public support from her party's ranking elected official. So did the people of Wisconsin, Ohio, Washington, and the rest, fighting for working families' rights basic to the existence and survival of our middle class.
Good luck, Elizabeth.
It has been said elsewhere, and I find it true, that Republicans have an advantage of staying on message and presenting that message to voters in ways that Democrats just fail to match. Elizabeth Warren has come out swinging with a message phrased with a succinct and powerful wording I would expect from a Republican candidate, only with a populist message. I have to say: I like it.
No she doesn't have political experience. Neither does Obama at accomplishing anything.
". . . showing other Democrats how to run on the populist issues Obama has laid out." Nope. Obama may have announced them to the world, but the ideas are not his. Financial reform is hers and only hers. Taxing millionaire's is Warren Buffets and 70% of the country's. I'm still waiting to hear if Obama has any specific ideas of his own. Never heard one before.
We are a special lot, if I may say ... in the sense that we may disagree on most issues but we always engage in fairly courteous discourse. The best thing is that the art of persuasion is alive and well at CW.com
I hope you'll consider joining in on the fun!