The Warren-Sanders Presidency
Elizabeth Warren is barnstorming so she can co-run the government from Capitol Hill.
By
Daniel Henninger
Updated Oct. 27, 2016 12:19 p.m. ET
The useful cliché that is pounding like a bad headache through the frontal lobe of millions of voters is the one about choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea.
The presidential devil vote may already be over. But choosing the deep blue sea—also known as the U.S. Senate—is very much in play.
That fact may be found by scrolling down to question 11A in the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll:
“Thinking more about the election for U.S. Congress, would you be more likely to vote for a Republican candidate who will be a check-and-balance to Hillary Clinton . . . or a Democratic candidate who will help Hillary Clinton and Congressional Democrats pass their agenda?”
A Republican: 53%
A Democrat: 40%
From that 13-point gap an obvious question flows: If Democrats regain control of the Senate, would you be happy with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as co-presidents of the United States? Ignore the Senate and voters will pay a price even bigger than a Clinton presidency.
Do not for a moment think Elizabeth Warren is barnstorming the country now only to elect Hillary Clinton. She’s getting out the vote to make sure Elizabeth Warren is in position next year to co-run the government from Capitol Hill.
More Wonder Land
That happened because progressives didn’t like what they believed the Clintons represented—cynical centrism—and they don’t like it now. There is no way the left now lets the Clinton Foundation and the politics it embodies recapture control of the party.
Elizabeth Warren, the Democrats’ Madame Defarge, and Bernie Sanders, winner of 22 millennial-fueled primaries, are going to guarantee the revolution’s purity in any Clinton presidency.
For starters, they have a list. Politico reported in early September that Sen. Warren and progressive policy groups such as the Roosevelt Institute are “developing a hit list of the types of people they’ll oppose—what one source called ‘hell no’ appointments—in a Clinton administration.”
The Warren veto over the next Treasury Secretary is well known. But any such “list” will extend to the people put in charge of the government’s powerful enforcement bureaus in the departments of Justice, Labor, Education and the regulatory agencies. The Warren wing will appoint the people who, as they did in the Obama years, tell the rest of America what to do. Under this system, your role is to salute—or get sued by federal lawyers.
It is assumed that in return for dropping his opposition to Mrs. Clinton, the Vermont socialist will become chairman of the Senate budget committee. Days ago, Sen. Sanders tweeted that becoming budget chairman “sounds good to me.”
Sen. Warren sits on the banking committee, which many people think she already runs. The Democratic chairman would be left-wing Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown.
As to Majority Leader Chuck Schumer arbitrating all this, Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders can turn the masses against anyone they want, including Chuck Schumer.
The basis of their beliefs aside, a Clinton-Warren-Sanders government would extend and expand administrative-agency policies that have suppressed economic activity the past eight years.
One example is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, finalized in 2015. Donald Trump got support in places like West Virginia and western Pennsylvania because of the destructive effect of the Obama “climate-change” policies on their livelihoods.
Mrs. Clinton’s solution, stated in the first debate, was replacement jobs making “a half a billion more solar panels.” Most displaced workers know this is pie in the sky, like “free” college tuition.
Many voters in the Republican suburbs of battleground states such as Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, New Hampshire or Missouri likely think life is good for them and will remain so no matter who runs the Senate. One big news story this week—about what is happening to ObamaCare—should make anyone who is complacent about their Senate vote think again.
Insurers have dropped hundreds of thousands from health plans. If a person doesn’t find a plan by Dec. 15, the federal government will assign them to a plan in a letter that includes their estimated subsidy for it.
Where does this “subsidy” come from? The 1%? Of course not. One way or another, it will get pulled out of the incomes of middle-class Americans—through higher premiums on their plans, indirect taxes or forgone wage gains.
In the world of Sens. Warren and Sanders, “fairness” requires Americans being pitted against each other by their own government. No wonder 63% of them feel the country’s going in the wrong direction.
A few days ago, Hillary Clinton said to a campaign rally, “I could listen to Elizabeth Warren go on all day.” Whether the country wants to remains to be seen.
Write henninger@wsj.com.
Elizabeth Warren is barnstorming so she can co-run the government from Capitol Hill.
By
Daniel Henninger
Updated Oct. 27, 2016 12:19 p.m. ET
The useful cliché that is pounding like a bad headache through the frontal lobe of millions of voters is the one about choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea.
The presidential devil vote may already be over. But choosing the deep blue sea—also known as the U.S. Senate—is very much in play.
That fact may be found by scrolling down to question 11A in the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll:
“Thinking more about the election for U.S. Congress, would you be more likely to vote for a Republican candidate who will be a check-and-balance to Hillary Clinton . . . or a Democratic candidate who will help Hillary Clinton and Congressional Democrats pass their agenda?”
A Republican: 53%
A Democrat: 40%
From that 13-point gap an obvious question flows: If Democrats regain control of the Senate, would you be happy with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as co-presidents of the United States? Ignore the Senate and voters will pay a price even bigger than a Clinton presidency.
Do not for a moment think Elizabeth Warren is barnstorming the country now only to elect Hillary Clinton. She’s getting out the vote to make sure Elizabeth Warren is in position next year to co-run the government from Capitol Hill.
More Wonder Land
- Dumb and Dumber Oct. 19, 2016
- Trump’s Party of One Oct. 12, 2016
- Aleppo Is Obama’s Sarajevo Oct. 5, 2016
- The Trump Mosh Pit Sept. 28, 2016
That happened because progressives didn’t like what they believed the Clintons represented—cynical centrism—and they don’t like it now. There is no way the left now lets the Clinton Foundation and the politics it embodies recapture control of the party.
Elizabeth Warren, the Democrats’ Madame Defarge, and Bernie Sanders, winner of 22 millennial-fueled primaries, are going to guarantee the revolution’s purity in any Clinton presidency.
For starters, they have a list. Politico reported in early September that Sen. Warren and progressive policy groups such as the Roosevelt Institute are “developing a hit list of the types of people they’ll oppose—what one source called ‘hell no’ appointments—in a Clinton administration.”
The Warren veto over the next Treasury Secretary is well known. But any such “list” will extend to the people put in charge of the government’s powerful enforcement bureaus in the departments of Justice, Labor, Education and the regulatory agencies. The Warren wing will appoint the people who, as they did in the Obama years, tell the rest of America what to do. Under this system, your role is to salute—or get sued by federal lawyers.
It is assumed that in return for dropping his opposition to Mrs. Clinton, the Vermont socialist will become chairman of the Senate budget committee. Days ago, Sen. Sanders tweeted that becoming budget chairman “sounds good to me.”
Sen. Warren sits on the banking committee, which many people think she already runs. The Democratic chairman would be left-wing Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown.
As to Majority Leader Chuck Schumer arbitrating all this, Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders can turn the masses against anyone they want, including Chuck Schumer.
The basis of their beliefs aside, a Clinton-Warren-Sanders government would extend and expand administrative-agency policies that have suppressed economic activity the past eight years.
One example is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, finalized in 2015. Donald Trump got support in places like West Virginia and western Pennsylvania because of the destructive effect of the Obama “climate-change” policies on their livelihoods.
Mrs. Clinton’s solution, stated in the first debate, was replacement jobs making “a half a billion more solar panels.” Most displaced workers know this is pie in the sky, like “free” college tuition.
Many voters in the Republican suburbs of battleground states such as Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, New Hampshire or Missouri likely think life is good for them and will remain so no matter who runs the Senate. One big news story this week—about what is happening to ObamaCare—should make anyone who is complacent about their Senate vote think again.
Insurers have dropped hundreds of thousands from health plans. If a person doesn’t find a plan by Dec. 15, the federal government will assign them to a plan in a letter that includes their estimated subsidy for it.
Where does this “subsidy” come from? The 1%? Of course not. One way or another, it will get pulled out of the incomes of middle-class Americans—through higher premiums on their plans, indirect taxes or forgone wage gains.
In the world of Sens. Warren and Sanders, “fairness” requires Americans being pitted against each other by their own government. No wonder 63% of them feel the country’s going in the wrong direction.
A few days ago, Hillary Clinton said to a campaign rally, “I could listen to Elizabeth Warren go on all day.” Whether the country wants to remains to be seen.
Write henninger@wsj.com.
