1. Elizabeth Warren is multifaceted, but in elections identity gets simplified. Her campaign needs to settle on which identity they want to go with: Warren the wonk or Warren the warrior.
2. Until last night, Warren the wonk has been the dominant message. She has a plan for that! This identity has some advantages: it plays to her unique strengths (mastery of policy), setting her against not just Trump but the other candidates.
3. Warren the wonk also played into her campaign's unity message (a wonk being able to figure out best policy solutions in a way that transcends ideological divide). It's a formidable message and won her a large, loyal following.
4. Problem with making wonk salient (at the expense of being a fighter) is it appeals to only a subset of voters (college educated whites), is demobilizing (she has a plan, so we don't have to have her back) and limited her ability to criticize party when it screwed up (Iowa)
5. Over-playing the wonkishness also obscured the fact that Warren hasn't just been a policy expert: he's used policy for a purpose, as a class warrior on behalf of ordinary people. As @rtraister points out, she's always been a fighter:
6. Eviscerating Bloomberg was not just good short term politics, but also showed, as @ThePlumLineGS notes, how Warren can fight both a specific political foe and (wonkishly) show that the foe is symptom of large structural problems. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/…
7. Some more thoughts here on why channelling anger is good for Warren's campaign, and also how to deal with the sexist backlash that might also come from her warrior identity: thenation.com/article/politi…
8. To those who say Warren can sell herself as both a wonk and a warrior, remember: elections simplify identity. If voters only have one word to describe Warren, is it better if that word is "wonk" or "warrior." Which facet should be salient?
