How Elizabeth Warren is dominating the Democratic presidential race

You might think such rhetoric would alienate Warren from progressives. But what she probably recognizes is that, while identifying as a socialist did not harm Sanders in the primary, it does not account for his support. People who supported Sanders in the primary actually had views on the size of government that were the same as, or slightly more conservative than, those of Hillary Clinton supporters. So what accounted for his enthusiasm? Sanders tapped into a deep vein of good-government progressivism. Contrasting himself with Hillary Clinton, who was mired in scandals about donor access, Sanders presented himself as authentic and idealistic.

Warren is shrewdly co-opting that appeal to openness and authenticity, and the importance liberal voters place on appearing to have nothing to hide. She has opened up her academic records, disclosed her tax returns, and (reversing previous practice) made herself accessible to Capitol Hill reporters. Her academic disclosures have already paid a major dividend. The Boston Globe investigated her hiring history, and found — contrary to accusations that have circulated on the right since the beginning of her political career — her occasional categorization as Native American resulted in no hiring preference. (Trump and his allies will obviously continue to mock her as “Pocahontas,” but Warren has a knock-down defense, and the mainstream media will not take the accusations seriously.)

Warren is running on a progressive platform that, if enacted, would sharply curtail political and economic inequality. But unlike Sanders, she is building a profile designed to compete for swing voters also, rather than solely to inspire progressive activists. The distinction can be seen in her rhetoric, policy substance, and choice of emphasis.