Are you sure you want to delete this post?
wwjd -- I agree that Elizabeth Warren is a polarizing figure in that she has enormous passion about inequality and its causes and can articulate those positions quite well. For that reason, many corporatist type Republicans fear her for her financial acumen and what she might do to the status quo of the financial world starting with the breaking up of the big banks.
That passion stimulates the emotions of the progressives, but at the same time can be seen by Republicans, moderate Democrats and Independents as more of stirring up "angry emotions" rather than realistic thinking of how to make her agenda happen when roughly half of the electorate is conservative in their bias.
When she speaks there is that uncharismatic tone in her voice of angry desperation in sharp contrast to the often calming voice of the charismatic Barack Obama. Some Republicans on the right are offended by her "sanctimonious lecturing" which is perhaps sexist in itself if one thinks of Donald Trump's endless and pathetic lies. Nevertheless, it drives her "polarization" label, perhaps unfairly.
Still, in this upside down political world where emotions trump critical thinking on both the left and right, is there room in the debate stage for a moderate anymore? Does the Democratic Party have to move far left to energize many of the progressives to vote?
I will reserve judgment on Elizabeth Warren. She may be the best choice to get out the vote of the "liberal malcontents" who have historically sat on the sidelines and bitched. The question is, for every vote she gains on the far left, will she lose a vote from moderates and independents?