The first move of her campaign, rolling out her DNA results was a total disaster. When I’ve seen her try to rile up a crowd, it feels cringeworthy to me. Being handed a safe seat in Massachusetts doesn’t wash that away for me. I don’t care how much that whelms you.
Do you miss that that took place before she started the campaign?
Noted already that is cringy to you, I will go for the ones that do know how much more cringy Trump is. Again, safe seats can also tell us (before the election ) that many independents can also go for people like Warren.
You can’t be that naive.
Nope, that is because I did also look at that, and while many did cringe, it is clear that advisors and supporters and many others do see it as a bump in the road, it is very noticeable that that seems to be a deal breaker to you, but the reaity is that many do not see it that way.
The election is so far away, the only thing I’m sure of is that these polls showing who’s a top tier candidate and who’s not can and probably will flip between now and then.
I still remember when Michelle Bachman was called a “top tier” candidate early in the 2012 race.
You said “Dems have locked up the [MA] Senate seats for decades”. That was clearly wrong. I corrected you. You get a grade of 50% for getting it right in one post out of two.
I have no idea what you and GIGO are arguing about. I have no idea why you think I’m taking anyone’s side in that debate.
ETA: I gave my opinions about Warren’s candidacy in post #53. If there’s something in there that takes a side in Carnal v. GIGO, do whatever with it.
This is true, but they also have to connect with black people. This is really important. Can Warren make this happen?
Right now the main thing that Warren is known for to the masses of people outside of her home state, is that she is a white lady who grasped at a flimsy thread of POC identity. This has been the singular issue swirling around her. I can’t see this playing well with actual POC.
Anyone for a pool on when she drops out?
I’ll take a couple of days after Super Tuesday if she lasts that long. As someone with established name recognition (up there with Sanders and Biden) she cannot stand to not do very well in IA, NH, and NV. If she wins none of them or alternatively isn’t second in at least two of them, she is toast. Lesser knowns can be perceived as “winning” just by hitting third and getting on the podium.
She’s got solid progressive cred to be sure, and she is smart, but this cycle there are several likely to run with that and most of them have more extra going for them than she does. Some who can orate/inspire and think on their feet a lot better than she seems to, some who have proven track records that can translate to more solid performance in the key states of PA, MI, and WI.
Her performance in the mid-term, relative to the partisan lean of her state, was amazingly WEAK.
Yeah, she way underperformed relative to expected as an elected incumbent in a freakin’ wave election environment, and right after that election Democratic voters in her own state are not behind her as a presidential nominee. If early polls are flimsy because all they measure is name recognition what does it say when those who know your name say “no thanks” overwhelmingly?
The only thing she will accomplish is splitting up the progressive lane making it more difficult for a less already nationally known one to get the traction they need. (And no it won’t be Sanders either.)
I expect the rain of announcements to come hot and heavy. The DNC announced most of its debate schedule a couple days before Christmas. The first of twelve debates is June 2019. Every month until the end of 2019, except for August, has a debate.
CA and TX both moved their primaries up to March 3rd as well. That makes early fundraising more important to be competitive. That’s especially true in CA where the early voting period starts days after the IA caucus and before the NH primary is held. The schedule looks like it will advantage early starts and early fundraising. A candidate that can’t afford sizeable spending on campaign staff and media buys in CA while still in retail politics mode in IA and NH is in serious trouble. That takes earlier entry than we are used to. It also takes entering early enough to be ready for that first debate a little over six months from now.
I do not expect earlier than Super Tuesday because of the compressed schedule. We can expect CA to skew towards the more progressive candidates. Warren has the name recognition and early fundraising potential to campaign strongly in CA. If early voting numbers are high and she’s high in the CA polls she can stand to struggle in IA, NH, and NV. In mid-Feb there’s no reason to drop if CA looks like a possible win just around the corner.
This cycle has the potential to turn a lot of old primary patterns on their head IMO.
Great, I stand corrected on a point I had already mentioned. The Republicans have enjoyed a wbole 3 years of a single Mass Sen seat in the last 30. Nit successfully picked.
The point remains her win was not impressive and DSeid’s cite points out it was rather unimpressive. She is not a good campaigner and I bet that will become obvious once we get close to the primaries and she gets actual competition.
Hillary is a right-winger… Hillary Clinton has supported the War in Iraq, War in Libya, killing Gadaffi, Wall St., NAFTA, TPP, Patriot Act, Criminal Justice for profit, DOMA, DOn’t Ask Don’t Tell
Maybe liberals only make 5% of the population? If Bernie doesn’t run, I’m not voting. But would prefer Warren over the others, but I think she turns many people off with her bombast, elitism… Not to mention she was a REgistered Republican until the 1995…
There’s nothing wrong with honest commentary, particularly when you’re obviously not going out of your way to be insensitive.
Looking at it another way, some people have qualities that make them a good senator, which Warren is. But she wouldn’t necessarily be the best president or a good candidate for president.
Incidentally, I do think that comparing the numbers to Hillary Clinton is not a very good metric when it ignores the independents that supported Warren in the past election. In any case, as 538 could tell you, very early polling for presidential candidates is very useless. Comparing the numbers to Clinton and others is not quite fair, and not conclusive, it gets a “weak” result when in the end one can say that it was still a thumping against the Trump follower.
No, she’s not. She’s a centrist. That’s been the Clintons’ brand for at least 30 years.
Well maybe not all of you but there is at least one person right here who seems to have that belief, suggesting that there may be others elsewhere.
You are, of course, correct. The question is can Warren make both of those things happen?
Can any Democrat, who has expressed interest in running, carry both of those groups? This is my major concern about 2020.
Boy that comes straight from the Bernie Bros. Or perhaps the Kremlin.
Yes, she- along with most of Congress, voted for iraq, but with serious reservations. 77% of the Senate and 70% of the House voted Yes- which means you’d consider 70+% of Congress to be Conservative.
The War in Libya was not her call.
NAFTA was passed in 1993, when Hillary was not in any office. It was passed by 73% of the Senate.
There’s no such thing as “Criminal Justice for profit”.
DOMA was passed when Hillary wasnt in Office. She actually worked to repeal it.
MortSahlFan, when you say things like that, you are supporting Donald Trump. Is that your intention?
I’d be willing to bet that ‘Criminal Justice for Profit’ refers to our system of for-profit prisons. And I’d concur that such is a true injustice that we should work to reverse.