Admittedly Warren would make an excellent stalking horse for the Democrats - have her draw fire and then have someone else win the nomination.
She could still play the flanking role in the primaries that the DNC appeared to be recruiting her for in 2016, before they finally accepted her refusal and turned to Sanders instead. But there’s no good reason to think she’d accept this time, other than to think she didn’t want to oppose another woman the last time.
I was justing asking you to share your source, rather than reinvent the wheel.
I like some of Warren’s views but we don’t need 8-16 consecutive years of very-old presidents.
CNN’s exit polls had the best breakdown and while it doesn’t break out non-Evangelical white women it does have Black women going Clinton 94%. All “no” to “white non-Evangelical” was 60% Clinton (“yes” was only 16%). It seems highly improbable that non-Evangelical white women got close to 94%.
She won white college educated women but lost white non-college educated by more.
He won biggly among voters wanting a change. She won voters who cared about the candidate caring about them, about experience, and about judgement. Neither was considered honest.
Gender simply does not seem to determine the vote even if it has an impact.
My understanding is about ~90% of Trump voters were also Romney voters. There was some political shifting between 2012 and 2016, but for the most part Trump didn’t build a coalition of new voters. He just picked up Romney voters and a few high school educated whites who voted Obama. Meanwhile Hillary got Obama’s voters and a few college educated white Romney voters. For the most part the electorate didn’t change from 2012 to 2016. to the degree that it did change, people high in authoritarianism and bigotry left the democrats and voted republicans, while people low in authoritarianism and bigotry left the GOP and voted democrat. In fact, how white your zip code is was one of the best predictors of how much more support Trump had than Romney.
I really don’t comprehend how Trump is the resistance. He has governed like a typical GOP plutocrat. He is the most corrupt and criminal president in modern history. I honestly don’t get it. How is electing a sociopathic billionaire who gives trillions in tax cuts to the rich voting for the resistance?
You answered your own question. People high in authoritarianism and bigotry were sick of being told they were wrong and outdated. Voting for Trump was their big middle finger to the last 50 years of western civilization.
I like Warren and think she would be a fine choice. Having said that, I’m a little surprised that she appears to be planning to run. I would have thought that she would delay a decision until Sanders gets in or out, because it’s hard for me to see how she gains traction in a field that includes Sanders. As elderly white progressives from New England, they would be competing for basically the same voters, and Bernie starts with big advantages in name recognition, net approval and organization. OTOH, Warren has the significant advantages of being a woman and not being anathema to much of the Democratic establishment, so perhaps she thinks that will be enough.
She’s also actually a Democrat, unlike Bernie, who is only one by convenience, having run against Vermont Democrats *fourteen times *over the course of his career, and having long insisted - sometimes in insulting terms - that he is not and never could be a Democrat. Even now his Senate website describes him as an independent.
Thank. These are NOT the data I remember but they are very nice.
If you play around with these number, and assume that the same population answered the applicable questions*, and that all Black women are Democrats AND voted for HRC**, it looks like at least 76% of White Democratic women did. That’s still low enough for “What were you thinking?”, but not as shocking as the 43% total. I don’t see a way to breakdown the Evangelicals, because the poll does not break it down by either gender or race - too many assumptions would be necessary.
- the raw total of respondents are the same
** for worst case for WDW
Well, they are both old, but Warren is eight years younger, and that does make a significant difference: Sanders will be 79 on inauguration day 2021 (so 87 if he finished two terms); Warren will be 71, so she would be the same age AFTER finishing two terms as Sanders would be upon starting his first term. That seems like a pretty substantial difference. [Let me put it this way: I have known a good number of very active 79-year-olds, both mentally and physically. I have known maybe one or two very active 87-year-olds.]
I don’t know that Sanders really has the advantage in other ways, either. I certainly know some folks (all white, nearly all men) who remain Sanders diehards, but I know plenty of others (all white, nearly all women) who really respond to Warren. In some ways she appears to be a feminist icon similar to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Curious about “net approval” being better for Sanders too–what’s your source for that? (And is it a significant difference?)
And while Sanders certainly sparked a lot of excitement, his 2016 campaign also left him with some negatives. As I mentioned, he performed very poorly among African Americans (and Hispanics), and I don’t see that changing; Warren might have the same diffriculty, but might not. And his decision to fight on till the convention, when it was clear that he had no path to winning, rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Catching lightning in a bottle is often temporary, and I’m not at all sure he’d attract the same level of support if he ran again. I’m not wild about Warren, but I’d vote for her cheerfully; I’d vote for Sanders if he were the nominee, but he’s basically last on my list. Anecdotal, I realize.
Anyway, if Warren thinks she has a better shot than Sanders, why not get into the race whether he does or not?
You have some odd ideas: Exit Polls 2016
Scroll down for evangelics.
You are not understanding what the break out of interest was.
The question is what was the share for Clinton of white women who are not born-again or evangelical christian. That can only be best guessed at by reasonable extrapolation from that exit polling data which is what j666 attempted.
Exactly, thank you, it appears that I was not clear - born-again/Evangelical is broken down by race or gender
Don’t assume that die-hard Sanders supporters would be opposed to Warren. If they support him because of his message, then they’re likely to also support Warren for her message, because their messages are very similar.
I think that, in 2016, Sanders probably would have fared better that Warren, because a significant part of the 2016 electorate wanted an angry man, and Warren is both less angry and less male than Sanders. But I don’t know yet whether that’s what the people will want in 2020.
If we’re at the point where we have to debate whether liberals will vote for the liberal Warren, then I say we just give up, run Bozo the Clown, and drink ourselves to death Nov. 3, 2020.
Is it so very outlandish to wonder if the D’s might want to appeal to the vast horde of middling middlers? And to note that — Senator Warren: She ain’t it.
You use whatever word you want, just don’t use them in public( preferably if you’re a politician you never say them aloud at all ). It’s called playing politics and being diplomatic. You don’t fucking insult people. It’s Politics 101 and I don’t give a shit what Trump gets away with. And anybody who argues “well, we would never have gotten those votes anyway” is an idiot.
People will be offended even if the insult isn’t directed straight at them, because of the disrespect. Worse, people to whom the insult isn’t really directed can still perceive it is, because human beings are thin-skinned and defensive.
First of all that is not 100% true. It may be largely true for his base, but even that is affected at the margins. But there is a reason the Democrats are favored to take the House this election and 90% of that is down to Trump being a tumor.
Second, and far more importantly, it is also completely irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what the hell he can get away with. YOU, the generic politician, cannot get away with the same shit. It may be unfair, but that’s life. It’s unfair only women can get pregnant, but that’s the world we live in. Accept it and move on.
I also think she aint it, but my reason is based on how I see her as a campaigner, not based on anything policy based.
On a policy basis she certainly could be it … if she could campaign it effectively.
Her experience and past record of actually accomplishing some things is a plus to some middlers, while she is enough not of the status quo to appeal to the many “change” voters (who sometimes care more that it is change than what the change actually is). Her economic populism message appeals to rural and non-college educated white voters, while she has expressed many times in the past a good understanding of why economic/class privilege is not the whole story and the independent, multiplicative impact of racial privilege.
Her positions and sincerely held beliefs hit what different portions of the vast hordes of middle want to hear. I just don’t think she has the oratory and on the fly talking chops to sell it.
It wasn’t broken down by both religion and race in Alabama, but I recall reading a blurb that there was a massive voting difference in white women depending on whether they were evangelical or not. The author claimed about 60% of white women who weren’t evangelicals voted Jones, vs a tiny number of white women who were evangelicals.
My math is probably wrong, but here is what I’m seeing.
34% of voters were non-white. Of those, 29% were black and went Jones by 96%. I’m assuming the other non-whites were latinos, who are probably closer to 65% Jones (no idea honestly what those remaining 5% of non-white, non-black voters were or how they voted. But I’m guessing Latino and I’m guessing they voted similar to they did in 2016).
56% of voters were not ‘white evangelical christians’. Of those, 34% are non-white. Which implies that 22% of the electorate in Alabama in 2017 were white non-evangelicals.
Those 56% of voters voted 76% Jones.
If you assume the 34% of non-whites were about 92% Jones (assuming 5% were latino), and the total people who were not ‘white evangelical christians’ was 54% of the Alabama electorate and 76% Jones, that means white non-evangelicals were 22% of AL voters and roughly 55% in the Jones camp. Since women are more democratic than men, that’d imply about 60-65% of white women (and about 45-50% of white men) who aren’t evangelicals voted for Jones.
Granted, whites in AL are more conservative than the nation as a whole.
Of course you’re right that the big themes of the campaign are largely in place, especially on the Republican side. People who think immigration is horrible and loathe and fear immigrants will be voting for Trump; people who think immigration is part of what makes America great won’t be voting for him.
I’m referring more to the (currently) unknown and hard-to-anticipate events which might affect the success of a particular challenger. Here are a couple of examples:
–Much of Trump’s appeal lies in the perception that he’s a “man’s man”–he operates from a position of power and authority and strength. An important piece of that is that he look the part–that he come across as physically strong, powerful, energetic, virile; that he have all the stamina anyone could want. Despite his age, diet, and lack of exercise, I think he does a pretty good job of this.
Suppose he develops some medical conditions and starts noticeably slowing down–his rallies seem less energetic, he starts looking tired and a bit haggard, he misses a few scheduled appearances and leaves others early, his walk slows down. (Not saying that this will happen, but it certainly could.)
If so, the Democrats could benefit from nominating a younger man, say in his forties or fifties, who would benefit from the contrast of an actual strong, powerful, energetic etc. candidate with a guy who’s clearly slowed down. In this circumstance, don’t nominate a candidate around Trump’s age.
–Or: Suppose that the economists who think tariffs are a Bad Idea are right. The price of a car does go up by 15%. There’s no appreciable increase in the number of jobs; in fact, unemployment rises. And China shows no indication of backing down; they’re happy to turn the screws even tighter. Meanwhile, Trump sticks to his guns, because that’s what he does.
As we know, the Dems are not united about trade issues. Under this circumstance it would probably be wise to nominate someone who likes trade deals and strongly dislikes trade barriers; that will play up the differences between the GOP, which continues to inflict harm, and the Dems, who advocate for something less damaging.
Whereas, if China blinks and jobs come back and prices don’t rise that much, nominating someone who strongly dislikes trade deals and is open to trade barriers might be a better plan, since that will be seen to have been a successful strategy.
Anyway, that’s the kind of scenario I meant.