The New York Times has an editorial in praise of Elizabeth Warren and her candidacy for Senate in Massachusetts. Interestingly (though also accurately) they highlight her ability as an effective messenger on the economy and class issues:

Democrats should not be cowed by conservative taunts that the speech advocated “collectivism,” and use this argument to push back against the Republicans’ refusal to raise the taxes of people who make more than a million dollars a year — sometimes far more. Senate Democratic leaders say they plan to employ poll-tested phrases like “Tea Party economics” and “Tea Party gridlock” in their campaign for a jobs bill and beyond. They would be better off listening to Elizabeth Warren.

I would hope that other Democrats do listen to Warren, though I’m less interested in them appropriating her messaging for its efficacy than adopting the ideology that stands behind the messaging. I don’t want to see a bunch of faux populist rhetoric from Democrats, but I do want to see politicians who are populist. I don’t think many incumbents are populists and I’m not excited by them trying to steal the thunder from those who are actually hearing the complaints of economically disenfranchised people and being responsive to them. That said, one of the supposed virtues of a Senator Warren would be her ability to bring this effective advocacy for the poor, working, and middle classes into an institution which his almost entirely captured by the wealthiest 1%. If the only way to bring conservative Democrats to a better place that gets better results is through cynical analysis of what is polling well, fine. But the existence of political success will be valuable only to the extent that the policies advocated in this messaging are enacted. And now does not seem like the right time to lie to angry voters about what you will or will not do for them.