Nate Cohn engages in all kinds of armchair quarterbacking here trying to prove that Warren is no threat to Hillary. But one could just as easily make the opposite case by pointing to the fact that Warren is second to Hilary in the polls AFTER DOING NO CAMPAIGNING AT ALL (and in fact publicly announcing she is not running).

The real question is why does the New York Times pay people to do so much idle speculation when it’s not what people want or need to read? Most people have no idea what Hilary’s actual policies are or would be. Why not inform the voters of something useful?