Senator Elizabeth Warren is about to become more influential in the Democratic Party. It was announced today that she will be joining the ranks of the Democrats' Senate leadership, albeit in a newly-created position that might be best called "Progressive Liaison." The position is seen as forming a new bridge between progressives and the party leadership, who have mostly been much more timid when it comes to issues with real populist appeal. Depending on what sort of leadership role Warren carves out for herself, this could be very good news.

I'm personally torn between cautious optimism and healthy skepticism, upon hearing the news. This could be a big step towards the Democratic Party getting back to its populist roots, where it proudly runs on issues which immediately benefit the average working American Jane and Joe. Or it could be just window-dressing, intended to assuage progressives without actually changing much at all. Conflicted thoughts, I must admit, but this stems mostly from the newness of Warren's new job.

The good news is that Elizabeth Warren will have a "seat at the table" -- she will attend the leadership meetings where Senate Democrats plan their best route of action for the immediate future. Having Warren in that room and at that table could signify a real sea-change in how Senate Democrats prioritize their agenda and fight their political battles. Warren herself is the perfect candidate to take a nebulous job description and hammer it into something meaningful and influential. I'd be hard-pressed to think up a better person to define a new leadership position on her own terms, in fact. At the very least, she will be a voice other leading Democrats need to hear on a regular basis, to keep them grounded on the subject of "things we can do to make average people's lives better." That much can be counted on as a bare minimum of the influence Warren will have.

The reason for being a bit skeptical as to whether Warren will be able to change much of anything remain, however. The first and biggest of these is that the Democrats will be the minority party for the next two years. Now, the minority party in the Senate is supposed to be a lot more relevant than the minority party in the House, but that depends on Mitch McConnell allowing the Senate to continue some of its long-held traditions -- which is not at all guaranteed. McConnell could, if he so chose, treat the Senate Democrats much like John Boehner treats their counterparts over in the House. So we'll see exactly how much influence in the legislative process any Democrats actually have next year.

The second reason for skepticism is Harry Reid. Senate Democrats just elected Harry Reid as the incoming Senate's new Minority Leader, which I personally consider a mistake. Reid could face a very tough re-election campaign in 2016 back in Nevada, where an immensely popular Republican governor is likely to challenge him. Senate Democrats (out of a sense of loyalty, no doubt) couldn't bring themselves to demote Reid two years before he faces what could be the political race of his career -- one he might easily lose. Reid may be the one to hold Senate Democrats together in the next two years, but it's debatable whether other up-and-coming Democratic leaders couldn't do the same equally as well. Reid's parliamentary skills are well-known within the Capitol building, but he falls flat when he tries to be a party spokesman to the public. Listening to Reid talk -- even what passes for "passionately" -- is about as exciting as watching paint dry. On this measure, there are many other Senate Democrats who would do a much better job at being a rallying public voice for Democrats for the next two years. Warren's advancement is being seen as a sort of balance for allowing Reid to continue as party leader, at least in some circles. Will this tradeoff be effective? It remains to be seen.

Warren will gain experience, no matter what happens now (or in the 2016 elections, for that matter). Warren currently falls into the general category of "eager new Washington politician with a positive agenda," but the usual storyline for most of these characters quickly becomes "disillusioned shrill voice crying in the political wilderness," once they fully experience the sausage-grinder that is Congress. Even in the Senate, you are still only one voice out of 100 -- and seniority matters a great deal in the Senate. Warren was really no more than what the British call a "backbencher" until now. Since the Democrats are in the minority, they will have very few chances to influence actual legislation, and there are a number of key issues Democrats will also be fighting for alongside Warren's economic progressivism. The nuts and bolts of setting such priorities may be too daunting for Warren to achieve much of anything tangible, at the end of the day.

That all having been said, let's take a slightly more optimistic look at what effect Warren's new leadership role will have on the Democratic Party. Warren has one skill that too many other Democrats struggle with: she knows how to explain things. She can pitch her message to just about any audience, and they will walk away understanding the points she is trying to make. That's supposed to be a basic skill for any politician, really, but some do it much better than others. This is why Barack Obama was only semi-joking when he told his 2012 nominating convention that he should appoint Bill Clinton "Secretary of Explainin' Stuff." Clinton is one of the gold standards in the category of explaining things to any audience in terms they can immediately relate to. Warren is one of the best of the current generation of Democratic politicians at this crucial skill.

This is going to become critical as the Democrats head into the 2016 election. While the attention will be focused on the presidential race, what is more important than what the eventual nominee says is going to be the groundwork laid in advance. The Democrats are losing the voters' interest because voters are largely giving up hope that either political party has the slightest inkling of how they live their lives, what problems they want to see solved, and what could be done to make their lives immediately better. Democrats don't really have to "redefine" themselves in this respect, what they have to do is go back to the definition that existed before Democrats decided that doing Wall Street's bidding was the way to political success. Democrats have historically been the party of the "little guy," and they just need to remind themselves of this.

To their credit, Democrats seem aware of the need to do so. Moving Elizabeth Warren up to a leadership job is just the first manifestation of this new reality. Hopefully, it will not be the last -- which is another way of saying: "Hopefully, Elizabeth Warren's new position is not just window dressing." I do think Democrats are aware that what was really missing in the 2014 campaign was a sweeping narrative about what, exactly, the party stood for and was going to fight for. They needed issues which resonated with the voters, who are pretty disillusioned. Elizabeth Warren's agenda is the perfect answer to what was lacking this time around -- issues like making student loans a lot more affordable and a lot more fair. Parents everywhere could have gotten behind that one, just as a quick example.

Democrats are in the process of figuring out what went wrong for their party in the last election. This is a healthy thing to do. "We didn't have Elizabeth Warren helping set our agenda" is a fine first thing to realize, while traveling this path of enlightenment. She has a built-in agenda, and fully supporting it needs to be the second big step for Democrats to take. It's an agenda centered on progressive ideas to help average working Americans in all kinds of ways. Most importantly, it stands for something. And standing for something was what was noticeably lacking last time around.

So even if Democrats are in the Senate's minority for the next two years, and even if nothing much can be accomplished legislatively, Elizabeth Warren could become even more of a powerful voice for the party to rally around. She has repeatedly stated she won't be running for president (and I believe her), but she will be gaining influence and experience in her new role. She will also be a lot more interesting person to hear talk than Harry Reid -- both in journalistic interviews and out on the campaign trail. Even with all the skepticism I can muster, it's hard seeing how Warren's elevation can be seen as anything short of a truly positive step both for Senate Democrats and for the future of the Democratic Party.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant