It’s truly amazing how otherwise intelligent people get stuck on Warren’s raw margin of victory, without apparently being able to comprehend how it needs to be adjusted for the partisan tilt of Massachusetts. And I know this is a problem for certifiably intelligent people, because I am having the exact same fucking argument with multiple people in the Triple Nine Society. :smack:
Sure, that’s great, a Repub can’t win there, got that. But then a Dem would have challenged her, and none did. Dems do challenge other dems, that’s how AOC got her seat, remember? Plus that damn carpetbagger Ro Khanna.
A primary challenge would never have a chance, because hardcore Democrats love her. This is exactly why she has the potential to be a McGovern type figure.
Please review the list of recent Massachusetts governors.
Only against the party organization, not with it, but if they do win, then the party embraces them. Ayanna Pressley would have been a better example, btw.
So who do you see as a possible challenger to Warren, and why would they want to? Names, please.
State vote margins for governor are often not well correlated with partisan lean for Federal offices. Senate and House vote margins are.
Meanwhile the latest YouGov Early States poll informs some as to what sort of policy positions those likely Early State primary voters prefer.
Healthcare and climate change are in the 1, 2 positions of importance.
They are strongly in favor of a Medicare for All that is available for all but by 63 to 37% prefer one which “Competed with private health insurance, as a choice for those who wanted it” and lowering costs is their most important item.
They do not prefer free college but do afford making it more affordable.
They overwhelmingly support “limited immigration with specific criteria for entry to the U.S.”, not increasing it.
Not exactly the more progressive positions that many of the candidate’s are taking.
Yet over 60% describe themselves as somewhat or very liberal.
Meanwhile Biden’s lead shrinks slightly and Warren leads as the one considered the most. On both Sanders drops to fourth.
Not sure what that means in the context of next fall’s campaign, but linky? Couldn’t turn it up either with Google or on RCP’s site.
You can read all that however you want. But she’s steadily doing better in the polls of Dems and Dem-leaning independents.
My problem is, I think that’s the wrong case to make. I’ve long since been convinced by the 2018 results that the Dems will win - or not - in 2020, depending on how well they turn out voters who will vote Dem if they vote at all.
I think that absent a case of why the MA or national approval/horse race numbers matter, they don’t really. Her polling numbers that count are those that measure her support and potential support among Dems and Dem-leading independents. Same as with all the other Dem candidates.
My flight is delayed so I’ll just mention for the 757th time that people should stop complaining about Hillary not visiting Michigan.
For one thing, there’s no evidence of any correlation between how much time a Presidential candidate spends in a State and how well they do there.
Also, it’s no secret that Hillary was vastly unpopular among those “downriver” type voters, so keeping her out of their faces may well have been a deliberate strategic decision on the part of her campaign, and possibly the correct decision.
I’m no HRC fan, but this particular criticism of her campaign is bogus.
DSeid seems to disagree.
SlackerInc seems to disagree, take it up with him.
People dont want to be a US Senator? :dubious::dubious::dubious::dubious:
When I said “the Dems” I didn’t necessarily mean Hillary Clinton.
Not disagreeing with the above, but the auto industry and the coal industry are two different things. People are still buying cars – yes, we’re trying to switch from purely gasoline-burning types, but it’s a WIP – and it’s problems, likely as not, had more to due with mismanagement than the vicissitudes of the economy and the changing face of technology. Coal? We’re leaving that behind. Get Over It.
In fact I do think that in that state she would be vulnerable to a challenge by a more Center-Left Democrat whose campaign is less about the Big Progressive ideas to restructure the economic system, and more about the bread and butter Democratic issues like gay rights, pro-choice, common sense gun control (like expanded background checks and such), criminal justice reform, and in that region in particular, addressing the opiate crisis.
I don’t know local politics there very much but one right off the bat could be current Massachusetts AG Maura Healy. Rep. Joe Kennedy III could be another one to challenge her given her low favorability rating in state. They are each gearing up to take on the other Senator, Ed Markey, now, but he is much more popular in state than she is. (And in 2014, an election with a national popular vote that was a 6 point GOP lean, he won with 62% of the vote, more than Warren won by in a Democratic wave election!) He’ll beat them both off and they will then both come after her seat.
Why? Because she is clearly more beatable than Markey is.
Biden’s actually been nudging back up in the polls lately. Morning Consult has Biden up 2% from two weeks ago, and YouGov has him up 3% over that time.
I live in MA and I think the “Warren underperformance” narrative is overblown, for a couple of reasons:
[ol]
[li]MA is reliably liberal, yes, but much less so than folks not from here seem to think. The statewide electorate routinely elects GOP governors and prior to Warren we elected an empty suit Republican senator. It’s not as progressive here as most people think it is, especially once you get out of Boston (and even there).[/li][li]Warren was cruising in the 2016 election in MA, so it’s possible that some Democrats didn’t bother to vote because it was a foregone conclusion. Foolish, obviously, but plausible.[/li][/ol]
In terms of her not being the first choice for many MA residents, there are some other plausible reasons for that, though I don’t have anything but anecdotal data. First, many people love Warren and want her to stay in the Senate, where they think she can be more effective legislatively. Second, even in her home state, the “early” narrative around among many liberals I know was “I love her - she’s clearly the smartest person in the race - but she’s not electable nationally.” We’ve seen many people posit the same argument here on this board. That kind of narrative can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Those specific arguments don’t hold much water.
Yes it is less progressive and more moderate/centrist than many think and that may be significant but the partisan lean D/R as determined by past election results is still what it is (whichever method is decided on). Election results for Senate (and president) are generally a foregone conclusion in your state. Turnout in 2018 was NOT consistent with that not bothering hypothesis.
Voters came out and voted. Just not as much for her as would have been expected if she was just a generic Democrat in that state. She got many fewer votes than did Galvin, or Healey, or even the Republican Baker
It also is still true that Markey won by more in an election with a GOP national popular vote margin, and that he has a better favorable/unfavorable ratio, and that other candidates who have ending up with the nom or even perform well usually rock it in their home state early on … (see Sanders for the latter in the 2016 cycle).
Thanks for that post, DSeid. The fact that she is not a good vote getter can’t be ignored just because you like her as a candidate. If you want her as a candidate, think of ways to solve that problem not how to pretend it’s not a concern.
Why did they get rid of the hand raising questions? Those were very informative and quite useful when you have 10 people on the stage.
What search terms did you use? I just used “RCP [candidate name] approval rating”:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/elizabeth_warren_favorableunfavorable-6675.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/joe_biden_favorableunfavorable-6677.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/bernie_sanders_favorableunfavorable-6676.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/kamala_harris_favorableunfavorable-6690.html
I guess I read Bernie’s wrong the other day, because his rating is underwater also. Of course, anyone who has paid attention to my posting history knows that I think he is a disaster as well.
I can already predict that people will respond that Warren’s approval ratings aren’t that much worse than the others. But this is exactly what I keep questioning: why do people keep squinting and always coming up with the rosiest way to spin her numbers? Isn’t it because you really want her to be president and you are engaging in motivated reasoning? Since when is “these numbers aren’t as bad as they look” a good selling point for a challenger to take on Trump?
I think many progressives understand, if only on an unconscious level, that Warren is not the strongest nominee in pure horserace terms. But they correctly see that Trump has so many weaknesses, it might not require the strongest electoral nominee to win, so therefore why not grab the golden opportunity to get a real progressive in the Oval Office? This is actually a legitimate, if risky, strategy. It’s a strategy I oppose, but it does have some logic behind it. I just wish people would openly embrace it as a high risk, high reward strategy and not try to gaslight me about how she is actually the most electable.
(Or what CarnalK and DSeid said.)
I just want to hear directly from the Warren backers. Do you really think she has the best chance to beat Trump of all possible nominees, or are you delighted by the idea of her being president and you believe she can do well enough to beat Trump? There’s nothing wrong with having the latter view, just own it!
Didn’t think of using individual candidates’ names.
Probably went with something like “Democratic candidates approval ratings.”
No, they’re BETTER, except for Harris.
At this point in the game, the potential problem is the people who already dislike a candidate. You’re not going to change many of their minds. Many voters haven’t thought about this much; they can be persuaded.
Sanders and Biden have the worst ‘unfavorable’ numbers of the four. There’s your problem candidates, particularly Sanders. But he’s not going to win the nom anyway.
No, I’ve thought all along that Kamala Harris probably has the best shot. But thanks for adding one more piece of evidence there.
When I looked at those links, average favorable was Sanders -2.3, Warren -2, Harris -0.5 and Biden +5.