Why hasn't Elizabeth Warren endorsed Bernie?

[Ronnie]

I've wondered about that question for some time now.  She agrees with him on practically every issue, and even said that she is "cheering him on".  So what gives?  Was she afraid of incurring DWS and Hillary's wrath?  Did she fear that she would further divide the Democratic Party, and undermine Hillary's prospects in the general in case she was going to win anyway?

[Oak Hills]

She probably prefers Hillary. And even if she'd prefer Bernie as president, she'd probably support Hillary for being more electable.

[RaphaelDLG]

I've wondered about that question for some time now.  She agrees with him on practically every issue, and even said that she is "cheering him on".  So what gives?  Was she afraid of incurring DWS and Hillary's wrath?  Did she fear that she would further divide the Democratic Party, and undermine Hillary's prospects in the general in case she was going to win anyway?

[dax00]

The same reason she can't answer any decisive question: she fears backlash.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It's the same reason why Wall Street doesn't back Bernie. It's useless to waste capital, financial or political, on a destined loser.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The same reason she can't answer any decisive question: she fears backlash.

[Derpist]

Because Elizabeth Warren isn't anywhere near as progressive as she pretends to be.

I'd forgive the Democrats for getting so widely fooled, except they've already gotten bamboozled once by a corporate stooge from Harvard.

[Kingpoleon]

The same reason she can't answer any decisive question: she fears backlash.

[RaphaelDLG]

It's the same reason why Wall Street doesn't back Bernie. It's useless to waste capital, financial or political, on a destined loser.

That's not the only reason why they don't back him

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Leverage I guess?

[Illiniwek]

Same reason Obama hasn't: too important of a figure in the party to take sides; she has a future as a leader in the party and its best for everyone involved if she doesn't alienate a sizable portion of the base.

[Ogre Mage]

Because Warren is politically cannier than that.  First, she's not going to throw away her endorsement on someone who is too far behind in delegates to get the nomination, especially when Hillary narrowly won Warren's home state.

Second she knows that her neutrality puts her in an influential position.  Her stature and progressive cred mean she can act as bridge between the Clinton and Sanders camps once the dust settles on the primary.  She can highlight how Clinton has moved towards Sanders positions, put further pressure on Clinton to adopt more progressive policy and encourage Sanders base to support Clinton.  In doing this she promotes party unity and increases her own influence.  I believe her recent praise of Sanders was the beginning of Warren stepping into her role as unifier.  

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It's the same reason why Wall Street doesn't back Bernie. It's useless to waste capital, financial or political, on a destined loser.

That's not the only reason why they don't back him

I'm sure.

In the alternate reality where Bernie becomes the nominee, you'd better believe there'd be a Wall Street-backed superPAC behind him.

[TomC]

She fears that "special place in hell" Albright told her about.

[Brittain33]

Leverage I guess?

[BlueSwan]

Same reason Obama hasn't: too important of a figure in the party to take sides; she has a future as a leader in the party and its best for everyone involved if she doesn't alienate a sizable portion of the base.

Pretending that Obama would even consider backing Sanders if it wasn't for strategic concerns.

[Lyin' Steve]

Because right now everybody is worshipping Elizabeth Warren like some kind of goddess, and it's much better for her to sit on her throne and not get involved and let people dream about her and create their own fantasy person than for her to actually wade into the fray, endorse Bernie, and go campaign for him, when people will realize she ain't all that.

[psychprofessor]

She doesn't like Bernie...ask Barney Frank.

[This account no longer in use.]

Because Elizabeth Warren isn't anywhere near as progressive as she pretends to be.

This. For a progressive icon, Warren's quite an establishment politician.

[RaphaelDLG]

Because Elizabeth Warren isn't anywhere near as progressive as she pretends to be.

This. For a progressive icon, Warren's quite an establishment politician.

Evidence?!?

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Because Warren is politically cannier than that.  First, she's not going to throw away her endorsement on someone who is too far behind in delegates to get the nomination, especially when Hillary narrowly won Warren's home state.

Second she knows that her neutrality puts her in an influential position.

This.

I think she would have endorsed if she saw a chance to end the primary/be the straw that broke the camel's back.  

Like I think if Sanders had convincingly won NV and IA, there might have been a chance Warren would have come off the fence.

It's also possible that she wants Clinton to be Pres. Not to go TNVolunteer on this, but American women of a certain generation and economic standing do tend to place a lot of value on having the first female President.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

As with James Clyburn, it's more likely than not based on comments she's already made (though not nearly as clear as it was with Clyburn) that she strongly prefers Sanders.  At the very least, she's publicly called for him to stay in the race and basically keep doing what he's doing in terms of tone.  However, like Clyburn, she has to know he has no shot at winning the nomination and that the Clintons are the type to keep extremely detailed enemies lists.  If she endorses him, he'll still lose and she'll have less influence in the Democratic Party (especially if Hillary wins the general).

TL;DR: Like many Democrats, she's probably stuck in a heart vs. head situation.

[Derpist]

Because Elizabeth Warren isn't anywhere near as progressive as she pretends to be.

This. For a progressive icon, Warren's quite an establishment politician.

Evidence?!?

She's absolutely drowning in Wall Street law firm $$$. Which isn't surprising - almost everyone involved in the US legal system has been intimately co-opted by Wall Street. This is a woman who has been wining and dining on Wall Street's checkbook for decades. She picks tons of irrelevant corporate fights, but when push comes to shove on financial issues, she's nowhere to be found (see how she backstabbed Bernie Sanders on the ex-im bank).

[cwt]

It's the same reason why Wall Street doesn't back Bernie. It's useless to waste capital, financial or political, on a destined loser.

He's not really a loser if he's been winning House and Senate seats for the last 20 years. They never backed him in those elections, either.

Hillary's Senate campaigns, though? Of course they did.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's the same reason why Wall Street doesn't back Bernie. It's useless to waste capital, financial or political, on a destined loser.

He's not really a loser if he's been winning House and Senate seats for the last 20 years. They never backed him in those elections, either.

Hillary's Senate campaigns, though? Of course they did.

Of course statewide elections are diffrent story than national, but I feel some people here are severely underestimating Bernie's electability and overestimate Hillary's electability (obviously I'm not suggesting the former would be destined to win while the latter to lose).