I can’t imagine a person they’d care less about impressing than you, no matter what political stripe they are. No offense, “slacker”.
More evidence of the weakness of Elizabeth Warren. Only four other senators have higher disapproval numbers in their home states than she does, and only one of those is a Democrat (Bob Menendez, who has been dealing with corruption scandals for years).
I’m not either of them also, but here’s a couple cites on a quick search.
So far, federal job-training programs have been outright failures
From The Hill March 2017
Reinventing workforce development Making job training more effective
bold added
From Deloitte Insights Aug 2018
The four are McConnell, Collins, Manchin, and Menendez. For the record, the latter two are Dems (though if there is any Democratic member of Congress about whom you can legitimately say “s/he’s practically a Republican,” it would be Manchin, he remains a Democrat and does vote as one in most instances).
And while they are the only five that exceed her disapproval numbers, Warren has higher approval scores than Murkowski, Tester, Blount, Paul, and Grassley, and perhaps others. --I agree that as a Democrat in a heavily Democratic state, Warren is considerably less popular among her constituents than we might expect. But it’s not quite as dramatic as that #5 ranking makes it appear.
That should of course be “the only four…” in the second paragraph. No fair counting Warren twice.
She’s still in my understudy position but the recent Suffolk poll https://www.suffolk.edu/-/media/suffolk/documents/academics/research-at-suffolk/suprc/polls/massachusetts2/2019/6_11_2019_marginals_pdftxt.pdf also places it in perspective. Trump is under water by 31. Much more than the national average. But she is just even. The other D senator, much less well known, is up 13. The GOP governor is up 54! And Biden leads her in her home state by 11.
Yes those numbers are a big yellow caution tape. I grant that much.
And only ten percent of the state’s Democrats would choose her as a presidential nominee. It makes me crazy that she is surging, and there are so few viable alternatives.
ETA: Yes, sorry: Manchin is also a Dem. Sort of. But given how blue MA is, her numbers are arguably the worst. I am still waiting to see evidence that she has appeal beyond the group who would vote for a warm glass of tap water if it were the Democratic nominee.
Pretty sure Massachusetts is not in play. Do please note how unpopular Trump was and is in his own home state - did that matter?
If Trump had been an elected official and his home state was Republican leaning, it would have been a similar cautionary bit of info. Since neither was the case, your rebuttal is weak.
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D, MI 12th District) disagrees that Clinton did during the 2016 campaign.
I said Clinton was in trouble with the voters I represent. Democrats didn’t listen.
Dingell first ran for the district in 2014 after her husband retired from the seat. In three House wins in the District her worst result is 64% of the total vote. Her GOP opponent got 29%. That was in 2016.
First her description of her electorate:
The downriver area is the types of voters we’re talking about. Despite the stereotypes that abound about rural voters in the disparagingly named flyover country, that’s part of the Detroit metro area.
It’s worth a read of the entire thing. She credits things Democrats did to demonstrably help like Obama saving the auto industry in his first term. Democrats mostly haven’t been targeting their messaging and engaging those voters, though. A little Bill Clinton “I feel your pain coupled” with explaining how the programs being proposed actually address their concerns, if not their nominal goals, could potentially go a long way. Hillary Clinton hardly bothered to visit during the primaries and lost Michigan. Both her campaign and the DNC seemed to ignore them throughout the general election…and she lost Michigan.
They’re blue collar union voters, after all. They volunteer, contribute, and show up to vote for the Democrat reliably year after year. Why pay attention to them? In 2016 a good chunk of those voters showed up and didn’t vote for the Democrat. That’s why. The current busload of candidates ignore that shift in the midwest at their own peril.
While ElvisL1ves’ comment is just silly, there is a real question as to how generalizable it is.
We have Trump being underwater there by 20 points more than national numbers and the other senator leading by 6 more than the generic ballot, while a moderate GOP governor is very loved. I read that as centrist to center Left status quo lovers state that prefers Democratic control of the Federal reins but is not very progressive, and has no love for shaking it up or disruption.
If so then a progressive D who wins the primary is going to win there but not be all that loved. Maybe that generalizes but maybe not. Is Massachusetts very much like that PA, MI, WI belt in that way? Or is it very different? I’d WAG not like the others.
But different how? Those blue wall states ( 
) may be more amenable to a progressive candidate, I would agree. The underlying problem could either be she doesn’t know how to reach a broader audience or that she simply hasn’t bothered because she didn’t need to. Both are problems but the second is more fixable.
But everything I see of her makes me think it’s the first problem. I have no doubt she can argue her points well, in a room with other informd people. I really can’t see her rocking the vote.
Right. On Facebook I snarked that she definitely had the reference librarian vote locked down, and one of the three or so people I was arguing with got irked, objecting “Hey, I’m a reference librarian!” :smack: (I swear this is true, and no: I had not known this when I said it.)
I’m trying to figure out the implication you’re drawing here. She’s doing well enough nationally, but I gather you’re saying that the people of Massachusetts see something in her they don’t like, and when everyone else sees it, things won’t go well for her.
The key thing next year with respect to such things will be, how will the GOP weaponize the weaknesses of the Dem nominee? So what is it that they see, and how easy will it be to weaponize it?
Yes. But what do you even mean that she is “doing well enough nationally”? Per RCP, she has the worst national approval ratings of any of the top four (I also tried to find approval ratings for mayor Pete but they don’t seem to have them). Far worse than Bernie or Joe, a couple points worse than Kamala.
I have a RL friend who likes Warren and keeps saying “she is doing great in the polls”. As best as I can tell, he means that she was doing terrible in the horse race polls before, and she is now doing OK in them. But she still only has 14.6% of the Democratic electorate saying they want her to be the nominee. Because it’s such a large field, that seems pretty good, rankingwise. But it still means that six out of seven Democrats prefer someone else, and it says nothing at all about people who are not Democrats, which is more important to the case I am trying to make—which is that I think the evidence shows that she is uniquely unappealing to swing voters.
I just wonder: does anyone sincerely believe that polling numbers look good for her? Or do they just really wish that she (or someone like her) could be president, and so they are making excuses and trying desperately to pull the best case scenario out of the data?
The significance of your assertion that Warren’s popularity in her home state matters in other states is *non-existent.
*
Take a breath, DSeid.
While I question its generalizability the rationale and evidence for its possible significance was in Enten’s CNN articlelinked to a while back. It is very existent.
To highlight the most salient part: elected officials who become eventual nominees are usually crushing their home state in early polling. Without a good explanation for why this case is different her doing poorly among those who know her best is minimally presumptive evidence of her weakness.
Loving the irony that the corporate shill former Vice President pays his staffers the $15/hr minimum wage that Bernie preaches but evidently does not practice.
Umm, so why did she win last election, 60.34% to 36.17%?
And during the primary, she won with 98.08%, since *no one even ran against her. *
I think this is more of the GOP hate machine making people look unpopular.
Enten and 538 are not exactly part of the GOP hate machine.
Did you at all follow the logic of state and district partisan lean? The analyses claim that given her state’s partisan lean and the overall popular vote margin that win is a significant underperformance. I’ve argued against it some and won’t repeat the argument but minimally it can be said that that win in that state with that election’s national vote margin is nothing to crow about. If anything it is another note of caution (not one I personally take too seriously though).
I get why these items raise a warning bell. But even with awareness of them she is still the best back up quarterback on the bench I think.