SPONSORED:

Boston Globe pans Warren as ‘divisive figure’ ahead of potential 2020 run

The Boston Globe's editorial board on Thursday panned a potential presidential run by Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenWarren says Republican party 'eating itself and it is discovering that the meal is poisonous' Briahna Joy Gray: Warren not endorsing Sanders in 2020 was 'really frustrating' McConnell hits Democratic critics of Israel MORE (D-Mass.), saying she would be a divisive figure when Democrats need to present a united front against President TrumpDonald TrumpWarren says Republican party 'eating itself and it is discovering that the meal is poisonous' More than 75 Asian, LGBTQ groups oppose anti-Asian crime bill McConnell says he's 'great admirer' of Liz Cheney but mum on her removal MORE.

“While Warren is an effective and impactful senator with an important voice nationally, she has become a divisive figure," the editorial board wrote. "A unifying voice is what the country needs now after the polarizing politics of Donald Trump.”

ADVERTISEMENT

A Warren candidacy, while likely to energize certain elements of the party's progressive wing, runs the risk of being mired in controversy over her claims to Native American ancestry. In October, she released the results of a DNA test that ended up drawing criticism from both sides of the aisle.

Warren’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill.

The editorial board argued that the Democratic field for 2020 is likely to be crowded with diverse candidates and may include high-profile candidates such as former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenBiden says Beau's assessment of first 100 days would be 'Be who you are' Biden: McCarthy's support of Cheney ouster is 'above my pay grade' Conservative group sues over prioritization of women, minorities for restaurant aid MORE, Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas), Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (D), and Sens. Bernie SandersBernie SandersOvernight Health Care: CDC approves Pfizer vaccine for adolescents aged 12-15 | House moderates signal concerns with Pelosi drug pricing bill | Panel blasts COVID-19 response Briahna Joy Gray: Warren not endorsing Sanders in 2020 was 'really frustrating' House moderates signal concerns with Pelosi drug pricing bill MORE (I-Vt.), Kamala HarrisKamala HarrisMcConnell: 'Good chance' of deal with Biden on infrastructure Democrat Nikki Fried teases possible challenge to DeSantis Pavlich: The border crisis Biden said we could afford MORE (D-Calif.) and Cory BookerCory BookerPolice reform talks hit familiar stumbling block Almost 20 advocacy groups team up to pressure Congress to pass health care bill for immigrants Biden adds pressure to congressional talks with self-imposed deadlines MORE (D-N.J.).

But the editorial board said Warren's time has passed.

“In 2015, this editorial page urged Warren to run, in part because of the lack of serious competition against Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonMore than half of eligible Latinos voted in 2020, setting record Fox News signs Trey Gowdy, Dan Bongino for new shows The Memo: GOP attacks bounce off Biden MORE. (Clearing the decks for Clinton didn’t exactly end well for Democrats, did it?),” the editorial board wrote. “Warren missed her moment in 2016, and there’s reason to be skeptical of her prospective candidacy in 2020.”

While Warren coasted to reelection in November, she won with fewer votes and by a smaller margin than the reelection of Gov. Charlie Baker, the state’s Republican governor in an otherwise Democratic stronghold.

“Those are warning signs from the voters who know her best,” the editorial board wrote.

Warren has fueled speculation about a potential presidential campaign, telling voters at a town hall in September that she would think about running after the midterms.

However, the Globe cited Deval Patrick, the former Massachusetts governor who announced Thursday he would not run for president, as an example it says Warren should follow to scrap a possible run. 

“Politicians who ‘explore’ or ‘consider’ presidential campaigns set in motion a machine that can be hard to stop. Patrick did, and that’s to his credit. There’s no shame in testing the waters and deciding to stay on the beach,” the editorial board wrote.