A different theory I’ve heard is that what alienates those voters is candidates who talk about race too much, and a non-white candidate in the modern Democratic Party is going to be able to wink and nod through the primary in ways that a white candidate won’t.
I have no doubt Warren has the right qualities, she just doesn’t have the right image. I agree completely that she will be most effective in the senate.
I remember when the common wisdom was that Democrats would never ever win again unless they nominated Evan Bayh yawn.
I would vote for Warren in a heartbeat. The Democratic Party establishment still doesn’t seem to understand that the progressive wing of the party represents its future. Moving to the right is a huge mistake IMO; trying to beat Republicans at their own game will never be a winning strategy. The Democrats have to offer a real alternative, not just Republican lite.
Having said that, I do agree with the reservations WRT Warren’s age. It’s about time for some Gen X-ers to flex a bit of political muscle in the Democratic Party.
Obama lost high school educated whites by 14 points in 2008 and about 27 points in 2012. Hillary lost them by 39 points in 2016.
So even if the democrats lose that demographic by 30 points, they will still win the midwest. However losing them by 40 points means the midwest becomes red.
They voted for Obama twice in large enough numbers that Obama was able to win the electoral college. And Obama rarely talked about race.
You may be right. I honestly don’t know. I just want to make sure the democrats keep their losses among high school educated whites down to ~30 points or so, so that the midwest is blue in 2020.
Warren is not a good choice. The Dems need to find a solid, moderate candidate or out of almost nowhere find a highly charismatic candidate like Obama was. Better yet, the Dems should find a Non-Trump Republican to run as a third candidate which will great assist whatever Dem wins the primary to victory.
Trump shouldn’t be that hard to beat, but then again Bush the Lesser should have been easy to beat and the Dems came up with the Kerry/Edwards ticket. Ugh!
I totally agree with your first paragraph. Not so much the second. And since the notion of age has come up, Biden is too old. (I say this as a 71-year-old.)
I hope the Powers that run the Dems are listening to remarks like the ones in this thread, because if not we’re going to get four more years of Trump.
The issue was not being against multiculturalism. The issue was a group feeling that their very real problems and challenges were being ignored and dismissed.
The simplest demonstration of that is to point out that the many of those High School educated whites who did not vote for HRC did vote for Obama.
Trump got more voter share of whites without a college degrees against Clinton (63%) than Romney (59%) or McCain (61%) did against Obama or Bush had against Kerry (61%) … but it wasn’t much more, and a line of 61 - 61 - 59 - 63 aint much of a “leaving the party in droves” trend. You could even more (and just as wrongly) claim that Blacks left the party in droves since lower than Obama turnout for Clinton swung key states more than increased white non-college educated white share for Trump did.
Compared to Clinton more whites without college degrees felt that Obama understood and cared about their problems more than McCain did and more than Romney did so they voted for him. It was not a vote about multiculturalism. They did not feel that Clinton understood or cared about their problems more than Trump did.
Being a woman, a non-white, or a liberal, is not the key factor for doing better with the group. Being someone who is able to connect and able to convince the demographic that they understand and even more care about their problems more than Trump does, is.
That said I am so far not convinced that Warren is a candidate who can do that broadly across the country.
When I say “introduced,” I don’t mean a political nobody will come from out of nowhere and introduce themselves to the nation when they announce their candidacy this fall or winter. I mean, a person that is currently not on the national A-list of candidates will announce their candidacy. There are already a half-dozen to a dozen politicians, who don’t have that national celebrity status, that are quietly laying the groundwork in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Those are the ones who will be most effective, I suspect, while the celebrity candidates like Harris, Booker, Sanders and Warren draw all of the oppo attention and ultimately get Hillaried.
There are a lot of charismatic potential candidates out there who aren’t absolute nobodies, but also don’t have the word “Senator” in front of their name and make the national headlines on a daily basis. That next Obama or Bill will likely announce their candidacy between Thanksgiving and Valentine’s Day and begin their rise to the top, one primary state at a time.
2008 - whites no college. 58% Mccain, 40% Obama.
2012 data is harder to find. But from what I recall, the gap is about ~25 points.
2016 - whites no college. 66% Trump, 29% Clinton.
The gap keeps growing among whites w/o a college education. In the 90s, the gap didn’t exist. By 2016 it was almost 40 points.
It does not. And I say that as a progressive.
Unless we get rid of first-past-the-post and go to a viable multi-party system, we will be stuck in “big tent” 2-party mode forever. Progressives are no more likely to dominate the Democratic Party than the libertarians are to dominate the Republicans.
The data is not so hard to find as I linked to it, unless you think the NYT is fake news.
And yes, the CNN link confirms that Obama (a Black man) did better with whites/no college than Clinton (a white woman) did. Obama also did as well with the demographic as Kerry did against Bush.
These are not facts that are consistent with white/no college education voters voting against anyone who is non-white or not male or liberal. They are not voting against multiculturalism. Oh some are, but not the group overall.
As for your Pew graph… Hmm in the '80 White/no college R+20 was a good D year. Bill Clinton got it up to even but it that group dropped back down after he was off the ballot. In 2008 White/no college? Let’s look at your graph. Huh. About the same R+20. The change has been the D’s relatively winning the White with college voters with Bill Clinton and keeping them since. That is the cause of the gap.
So why did Bill Clinton do so much better with that group (per your link) than did Carter, Mondale, Gore, Dukakis, Kerry, or Obama (let alone than HR Clinton)? Was he whiter and more male than all of them? And what does the fact that the GOP has persistently lost share of white/college educated voters ever since Bill Clinton mean?
Would Warren be perceived as really understanding and caring about the real problems the demographic has? Can she express that AND still connect with the other demographics who are needed with high turnout for a D win?
That is not a function of her gender, or color. It is a function of how she campaigns, how she speaks and what she says. How she orates and how she interviews off the cuff.
Does she have those goods, like Obama did (and Bill Clinton too), or would she whiff it like HRC did, and be perceived as not understanding or caring about them?
I think it would be fantastic. I urge you all to vote for her.
I would vote for nearly anyone over Trump. And Warren is a good example of what I want from a President. But I don’t yet know whether I would vote for her in a primary, for two reasons: First, she’s not the only example of what I would want from a President, and I’d have to see who the other candidates are. And second, I don’t know about her electability. And I mean that literally: I don’t know. Once poll results start coming in about hypothetical matchups, we’ll know more, and I still think it was a tactical blunder for Democrats to ignore those polls concerning Sanders.
I agree that she’s older than ideal, but I don’t see that as a terribly big problem, as long as she chooses a good (and younger) running mate.
I think 2016 was Warren’s year. I am still baffled why she didn’t run. I thought perhaps she wasn’t interested in running for President but apparently that’s not it. If she was scared away by the Hillary hype, that shows a serious lack of political judgement. Hillary was always a mediocre candidate and if Bernie could give her a scare, I think Warren could have gone all the way, including the general.
In 2020, she will be on the wrong side of 70 and will face a crowded field. Still she is a talented politician with a knack for explaining economic issues in a way ordinary people understand. I think her big worker co-determination idea is highly dubious but many of her smaller ideas for regulating the financial sector and stronger antitrust make sense. Overall, she is not the worst the Dems can do and in particular I think she is a better candidate than Bernie.
She’s the kind of person I’d want as president - extremely educated, a crusader for ordinary Americans, and with a strong track record. And importantly, she could unite progressives and centrists.
As for whether she could win…
Well, after 2016 I no longer presume to understand the way the American electorate thinks.
The Pew study found that the partisan gap among whites w/o a college degree went from about 0 points in 1992, up to about 39 points in 2016.
The education gap among whites barely existed 20 years ago. In fact in 1996, college educated whites preferred the GOP. Now there is a 35 point gap between college educated and high school educated whites. The gap in 2012 was only 11 points, in 2016 it was 35 points.
Warren and Sanders are similar enough, ideologically, that I think that she probably decided against running against him and splitting the economic-progressive vote and diluting the message.
I ratify that sentiment.
Although once again I think everyone is designating a potential Democratic candidate as way-progressive radical-left when she isn’t. Although she’s a lot more of it than Barack Obama was. He was a true moderate. I’d characterize Elizabeth Warren as a true liberal but not a far-left radical by any means. She’s pragmatic and doesn’t regard Republican (classical, not current edition) perspectives as batshit-insane thinking. She’s been known to vote Republican, albeit not recently. Personally I don’t find any of this worrisome, but reassuring.
I think she’d restore some financial equity after a long trajectory towards severe polarization. I dont think she’d be terribly different from a hypothetical Hillary Clinton administration internationally.
She’s got my vote if she gets the nomination, for sure. I’m in no position to donate to her campaign these days.
Given that she regularly voted Republican, no, I don’t think Warren did regard the thinking as bat-shit insane.