It's interesting Elizabeth Warren's messaging to the media is that she's grounding her campaign in historic movements, when over the course of her life she wasn't part of any social protest movements?

The anti-war movement, the climate movement, the feminist movement, the civil rights movement, anti-apartheid all came and went during the course of Warren's life and she didn't take part in any of these social protest actions.

In her book, Warren even sort of apologizes for claiming credit for Occupy Wall Street "I was deeply embarassed. My words sounded so puffy and self-important, and they made it seem as if I were trying to take credit for a protest I wasn't even part of." https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Fighting_Chance/dbGfAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=protest

It may be a pivot to try to broaden the base of her voters. Her first strategy was to brand herself around plans/planning which appeals to a different spectrum of voters than branding yourself around social protest. But she doesn't have the background to claim the mantle.

To put it into perspective, Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Bill Clinton were all involved in social protest movements at one point or another, and none of them are die-in-the-wool hippies.

I think Warren's campaign is just trying to rebrand itself a lot to broaden the base. Which is what campaigns generally do. But this rebrand is weird, especially when a lifelong social activist, Bernie Sanders, is in the race. Can't just hope friendly bloggers force the frame.

If I was her I'd double down on how she switched parties from GOP to Democrat due to her academic work on bankruptcy. Be authentic, stop trying so hard to be the liberal PMC candidate. That would make inroads, right now she's losing that war to Pete.

One of few things Trump and Sanders share is they just tell you what's on their mind and don't try to craft their personality around expectations. Warren's campaign at this point is trying way too hard in a number of dimensions, coming across as inauthentic.