A recent fivethirtyeight article compares Warren’s 2018 vote town-by-town in Massachusetts with Clinton’s vote there in 2016. Clinton did better than Warren in high-income, college-grad suburbs: 6% better in Weston and Wellesley. But Warren outperformed Clinton in blue-collar towns, 15% better in Middlefield and Hawley. Warren also did slightly better among young people.
See, the reason why this is nonsensical is the the Pres has no power at all to get the senate to dump the filibuster.
And Biden has been warming to the idea, however, again it wont be up to him.
Woohoo! Better than Clinton! However, I’ve been told by a certain Warren booster that we shouldn’t care about Warren’s previous elections, otherwise we’d have to care bout how she was beat in vote count by her statewide Dem colleagues and the Republican governor in her last election.
I am also concerned about Warren’s electability, but if we assume that the stumbling and aging Biden is too risky a choice, who is left? The Governors have dropped out; and Harris is probably even less electable than Warren.
I’m starting to think that asking Michelle Obama to make a huge sacrifice may be America’s best chance. Of course she should make clear that she’ll count on her husband for a lot of advice!
Michelle shouldn’t be asked to be a saviour. The right wing hate machine acted truly evil towards her for eight years. Now is her time to relax.
If Al Franken hadn’t got caught up in his thing I bet he’d have joined the race and would humiliate Trump. Electability and the idea of it resides in personality. There are some solid policy guys in the race who are just too dull for people to think they can take on a made by reality tv president. Michael Bennet for example. Sound platform but dry. Unfortunately being a wisecrack is important more than ever.
Biden isnt too old and his gaffes are as normal for several decades.
But yes, Michelle would make a great Veep.
I do wonder why Silver did not bother to shift by the partisan lean of each election (4 more D-ward in 2018 than 2016).
Still making that shift, and noting as he does in that article that her net totals were actually underwhelming given the state’s degree of Blue hue, it still tells us … something.
Even correcting by that 4 point greater election lean she not only still healthily outperformed Clinton in the lower income non-college educated white communities, she did as well or better than Obama had done. To make that very clear: *she won back Obama-Trump voters and maybe a bit more.
*
Now mind you she may have lost a few Romney-Clinton ones in those wealthiest most highly educated zip codes in the process. The state perhaps has an over-representation of those wealthy highly educated voters, who trend to not prefer an economic populist candidate who promises to disrupt the status quo some, but I personally think that against Trump they’d stay voting D.
Her performance with voters of color “wasn’t actively bad” and she, no surprise, did fine with the younger voters that some mistake as the only base that counts.
That’s a pretty good data-driven bit of support for her electability. It does not dismiss the importance of those (actually many millions of) Blue collar workers in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and even Ohio … it gives some reason to believe that she instead can resonate with them.
I an extremely dubious. As far as I can see, she won back the Obama-Trump vote in a few precincts, hardly a state wide thing. And a serious look at Warren’s ability would have included how the other statewide winning Dems did for a comparison, so we can see how much of that swing can be laid at other factors. If everyone else beat Clinton in blue collar neighborhoods, it doesn’t tell us much at all about her abilities.
I don’t understand it, but I’ll take your word for it.
Tru dat, but my point is that there’s a positive chance if the nominee makes a big deal of it on the campaign trail, and a zero chance if the nominee doesn’t.
I think the Obama example has relevance, but Trump/Mitch? I think you’re confused over who’s the toady: if Mitch is anyone’s toady, he’s the toady of much bigger money than Trump has; he’s definitely not Trump’s toady. Mitch keeps the filibuster because he can get the big things he wants without it (huge tax cuts, Federalist Society judges), and wants to leave it there because he can kill every Dem bill from here to Kingdom Come if the Dems don’t have the guts and the initiative to get rid of it on their own. That’s what he’s banking on for when Trump leaves office, and like you say, it’s a pretty good bet.
Like I said, “pretty good” … it certainly is not slam dunk level and dubious is a reasonable take. But I’ll stand by describing it as “some reason to believe” … 
RTF, let’s play out that “positive chance” … assume that somehow the Ds pull out a narrow Senate win (includes Manchin) … what do you think is the amount of that “positive chance”? No Rs will vote for it and quite a few Ds are on record as being dead set against it. Nothing is I guess impossible, but if you estimate that as higher than one out of thousand I’d say you are being way too generous. That is the case no matter how much the president had campaigned on it or pushes for it.
And factor in that every president has a bit of a honeymoon period and some limited political capital to spend in their first few months. Would that sure to fail windmill tilting be the best use of that limited capital?
If you believe that Zaphod has a significantly greater risk of losing to Trump than Candidate A then that near zero hope that Zaphod will result in elimination of the filibuster is way offset by that risk.
Okay, but who was Warren running against? Oranges and apples.
Interesting take by a Bernie supporter I heard on a podcast today.
I’m paraphrasing but in effect he was arguing “The right wing keeps moving further right but the onus is only on the democrats to stay in the middle. Only democrats get told by party leaders and think tanks they can’t move too further left but republican party leaders embrace moving further right.”
The natural response is elections are won in the middle but he believes 2016 showed that to be a dated point of view and now populism is the new formula.
“Let’s throw out every common wisdom because Trump won” is actually not a very uninteresting take.
I assume you mean interesting rather than uninteresting?
I strongly endorse several of DSeid’s recent posts.
Actually, I have said repeatedly that probably any conceivable Democratic nominee is going to beat Trump. But that means we are also choosing our 2024 nominee, and those candidates you are referring to are not very RE-electable. You may feel now that this is a distant concern next to the urgency of voting Trump out next year, but the next election will come sooner than you think and it won’t feel so great if some other Republican is back in the Oval Office in 2025, after a House and Senate GOP sweep in 2022.
Assuming that the presidential candidates will be Trump vs. Biden or Warren or Bernie: Is this the first presidential election in which both party’s nominees will be 70+ years of age?
I’d missed that, but it sure seems you’ve been saying that you’re not sanguine of the 2020 general election prospects of most of the top Dem candidates for the nomination.
Anyway, fair enough, I’ll take that for granted going forward.
I fully expect that sweep, if we get the usual Dem ineffectuality.
You know, if things are in shitty shape in 1994 or 2010, and the Dems in office have only theoretically made people’s lives better, but they’re still unemployed (or getting crappy wages), losing their homes, and are unable to save for retirement, of course the Dems get blown away in the midterms.
Same deal in 2022. Nobody out there will think, “It’s all Mitch McConnell’s fault for filibustering all the Dem legislation.” They’re going to think, “we elected Dems, why aren’t they making my life better?”
The Dems need to (a) win the White House and Senate, (b) kill the filibuster, and (c) pass legislation that makes a difference to people fast. Sure, chances are they’ll lose a few House seats in 2022 no matter what (probably not Senate, though, given the map), but they don’t have to be a disaster. But they need to give people who voted for them in 2020 plenty of reason to show up and vote for them again in 2022. If they succeed in that, they’ll do OK in 2022, and likely again in 2024.
So in the crucial tipping point state of Wisconsin, Warren is tied with Trump but Biden is nine points ahead. This research from MIT may help explain why:
That’s quite the twofer! Whereas both groups are weak demos for Warren.
Does the current however inform about November?
Is it assured that Black turnout/share would be higher for Biden than for Warren? Heck at this point in the '08 cycle the Black demographic was more for Clinton than Obama - they were concerned about electability and skeptical until Iowa proved them otherwise.
Did those non-college educated white voters who voted for Obama leave primarily out racial resentment? And is an establishment return to normalcy candidate better positioned ro regain them than one who promises “change” yet again?
I’m really not sure of the answers to these questions. Warren may be the best choice but she needs to still show it. I’m guessing she will. Until then Biden is the default. IMHO.
I have been very negative about Biden, but the political ability to have strong appeal to both blacks and racist whites is pretty impressive. That’s some FDR type shit right there.