If anyone held the belief that the fight for the 2020 US presidential nomination is not fully engaged, US Senator Elizabeth Warren just proved them wrong.
On Monday, the Massachusetts Democrat used a campaign-style video to disclose a DNA test proving a very distant Native American ancestry. On the surface, Warren was fighting back against accusations that she improperly claimed that ethnic background, but this was not principally a rebuttal of slurs that US President Donald Trump and other Republicans are sure to keep making. What is really going on is invisible-primary positioning, even though she made no mention of the 2020 race.
Warren’s video did three things: By setting up Trump as her main foil, Warren elevates herself to presidential stature. Of course, the president gave her the opening by using ethnic slurs against her. Others have leveled accusations, too, but by focusing on Trump, the senator and her campaign team set her up as someone special, rather than just one in the crowd of semi-anonymous lawmakers, governors and mayors all maneuvering for the nomination.
Confronting Trump allows Warren to try to appeal to Democrats who are looking for a fighter to take on the president in 2020. Indeed, Warren’s skill at portraying herself as a tough combatant, but mostly with good humor and without bitterness, is probably her strong suit in nomination politics. That was a quality many Democrats liked about former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton during the last cycle.
The video itself, despite its focus on ethnicity, is in the style of a convention biographic introduction film — the kind that is played just before the nominee’s acceptance speech at the convention. Senators, even those seeking re-election, which Warren is doing at the moment, do not do extended biographies that go back to their roots and feature interviews of their family members — especially when, as in the case of Warren, those roots are in another state. She was born in Oklahoma.
In any case, the audience is not voters at this early stage. The video is intended for party actors — the politicians, campaign and governing professionals, formal party officials and staff, donors and activists, and party-aligned interest groups and the partisan press, who pay close attention to politics and have the most say in nominations.
For now, Warren’s goal has to be to convince as many party actors as possible that she is the legitimate frontrunner, even though she is still mostly unknown to most voters and therefore is just one of the pack in way-too-early polls. The more she can achieve any kind of prominence, the less party actors will encourage marginal candidates to stay in.
Candidates during this phase are making the rounds of those active Democrats, hoping to win endorsements or at least signs of interest. If they mostly encounter people already committed to another aspirant, they might choose against moving on to a full-fledged declaration of candidacy. Each one who drops out is one more who cannot suddenly catch fire and move from obscure also-ran to serious contender.
It is just a bonus if she successfully taunts Trump into responding, which would only enhance her credibility with Democrats.
Although it certainly created a stir on Twitter, the DNA video is only the latest in a series of solid moves Warren has been making.
The Washington Post’s Matt Viser reported on the advanced state of Warren’s campaign.
She has staffers in all four of the early states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — and she has forged ties with candidates in next month’s midterms across the US.
“I speak a lot to candidates who are running this year,” said David Axelrod, a top political adviser to former US president Barack Obama. “She’s the first call they get after a primary. It’s not just the winners she’s calling, she’s calling the losers, too... The scale is pretty impressive.”
“This is how you go about building relationships and acquiring chits for a future project. It’s very smart,” Axelrod said. “If you were advising someone who had the resources of someone who was going to run for president, this is what you would do.”
Warren is not alone; US senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker are making similar, but reportedly not as systematic or extensive, efforts and several 2020 candidates have raised money or made appearances on behalf of contenders for this year’s midterms. However, Warren seems to have the most comprehensive effort so far.
She has also done a good job of rolling out policy ideas, a step that allows would-be candidates to make specific appeals to various party groups while demonstrating that they are sufficiently serious to deserve support.
Most of these efforts target party actors, but there is also a secondary audience: the 20 or 25 other plausible nominees. On top of what they are hearing when they talk to insiders, the idea is that some will see how much Warren and a few of the others have done so far and conclude that it is already too late to catch up.
That does not mean she will necessarily win, of course. Warren has weaknesses and several other contenders bring their own strengths to the race. Her video did get some pushback based on the notion that it was a distraction from the final weeks of the midterms campaign. There is obviously a long way to go, and plenty of surges and fades can be expected over the next 15 months in what will almost certainly remain an open competition at least until the Iowa caucuses.
However, while there is no strong leader yet, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Warren is more likely to win the nomination than any other contender at this point.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath