Disappearing ink

Soon, one candidate won’t be in the headlines

ELIZABETH Warren finally faced voters, albeit only voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. And she didn’t perform well. Which came as a surprise to pundits, because it seems like she’s been running for president forever. But it’s just been four years. It only seems like forever.

Here were a few of the headlines in The Washington Post on Thursday, all concerning Elizabeth Warren’s campaign for the Democratic nomination: Elizabeth Warren’s message is now muddled Elizabeth Warren is not a credible uniter A woman can become president. Just not this one Before somebody accuses us of playing the gender card— whatever that is—or of being misogynists who should be ashamed, all those columns were written by women.

According to exit polls, Elizabeth Warren received 10 percent of the female vote in New Hampshire. (Mayor Pete got 25 percent.)

Also in the nation’s first primary, Senator Warren—of Massachusetts just next door; the Boston market covers much of New Hampshire—got 7 percent of the male vote, 7 percent of the under-30 vote, and 5 percent of those who claim to be independent voters but cast their ballots in the Democratic primary this time.

This is not a candidate who can unite a party.

Yet that’s what her concession speech Tuesday night was all about: unity. Getting behind a candidate who can appeal to the most Democrats. And beating Donald Trump in November.

And how can her party get there, in her opinion? With more impeachments. She was in the news late in the week for calling for the impeachment of the current U.S. attorney general. Even Nancy Pelosi shrugged off the suggestion. What happened to this campaign? We are happy and gratified to be able to answer: We don’t know. Fellow traveler Bernie Sanders won New Hampshire and almost won Iowa. The moderates seem to be dividing the vote (at the expense of Joe Biden). And it doesn’t appear from the debate crowds, campaign rallies or TV commentary that the progressives are looking for something less progressive than AOC & Co.

What gives?

Could it be that Elizabeth Warren is unbelievable?

Over the summer, she penned an oped titled “The Coming Economic Crash and How to Stop It.” In another five years, or 10 years, or 20 years, she may yet prove clairvoyant. Because there’s always an economic downturn coming. It’s called the business cycle.

Paul Krugman got a Nobel Prize for predicting economic doom for years in a row, until a crash finally happened and he could claim victory in its wake. Like the stock market, Paul Krugman might have predicted nine of the last five recessions.

The last paragraph of Sen. Warren’s summertime essay: “Warning lights are flashing. Whether it’s this year or next year, the odds of another economic downturn are high—and growing. Congress and regulators should act immediately to tamp down these threats before it’s too late.”

Putting aside whether more regulation is good or bad for an economy, this was written in the summer of 2019, when the headlines in the Business section were almost entirely good.

The facts might change, but her opinion hasn’t. All these months later, Elizabeth Warren is still pushing Oliver-Twist-in-America on her website:

“For decades, the wealthy and the well-connected have put American government to work for their own narrow interests. As a result, a small group of families has taken a massive amount of the wealth American workers have produced, while America’s middle class has been hollowed out.”

Hollowed out? Will somebody in her campaign whisper some numbers in her ear? Such as the unemployment rate?

Elizabeth Warren has a plan to fix this booming economy, but good: “A small tax on the great fortunes of more than $50 million can bring in nearly $4 trillion to rebuild America’s middle class.”

First and last question: How is a small tax going to raise $4 trillion? Maybe the answer is more government regulation.

IN ELIZABETH Warren’s world, this economy is “lopsided.” The tax code is “slanted.” The concentration of wealth is “extreme.” But a small tax would fix all that. Also, like Bernie Sanders’ proposals to fix the economy good and hard, she would include “a significant increase in the IRS enforcement budget” to round up any stragglers.

Those who live in the real world might have a different point of view. They might see an American economy expanding for more than 10 years now, which is a record. They might see a market that added 225,000 jobs last month, in what experts call an “astounding” pace.

They might see that the unemployment rate ticked up last month, from a 50-year low of 3.5 percent to 3.6, but also understand that’s probably because more people entered the labor force to take advantage of this cycle. And realize that this labor market is putting pressure on wages—upward pressure, according to Market Watch: Worker pay has gone up 3.1 percent in the last year.

So who, besides Elizabeth Warren, sees a hollowed out middle class and a lopsided economy?

We’ll guess 5-7 percent of the voters. See the results from Iowa and New Hampshire.