Here’s a thread to discuss post holiday polls leading up to Iowa.
First up is a CBS/YouGov poll:
Bernie/Biden/Buttigieg all tied at 23% and Warren in a poor 4th with 16% and Klobuchar at 7%.
First thing to note is everyone else is below 3%. Barring a miracle, Yang and Steyer ain’t making the next debate and they’re done. It’s also time for Booker to close up shop.
This is just awful for Warren, it really looks like the M4A flip flop hurt her and spending all of December ranting about wine caves may not have been what the voters want to here.
For New Hampshire it’s Bernie at 27%, Biden 25%, Warren at 18%, Pete at 13%, and Klobuchar 7%. Not much of a neighbor state bump for Warren in NH. A 4th place and a 3rd place for Warren doesn’t give her much of a path going forward with Biden likely to steamroll SC.
I’m definitely eager for the next Ann Selzer poll of Iowa to see how well they correlate.
Warrens medicare flop was bad, but in the last debate she just wrote off economists as ‘wrong’. Liberals generally want a politician who lives in reality, so that probably hurt her even more.
I’m wondering if she will drop out after NH, and if so where her voters will go.
Exactly, Liberals. The people who don’t live in reality and think they’ll just take all the money from Bezos and Zuckerberg to pay for M4A and stop climate change are already with Bernie. I don’t even consider them liberals, they’re dreamers.
Plus, Warren has a bit of a problem defining herself and I cringe when she tries to get folksy. We all know that Bernie is the passionate fire breather who’s be the most popular social science professor at college. Pete’s the nerd who’s the smartest kid in the class and Biden is Uncle Joe.
I will say this: the recent developments in Iran could end up benefiting Bernie Sanders the most. I was thinking that we had moved past the point at which Sanders could pick apart a moderate establishment candidate for using “bad judgment” in foreign policy, but the Iran debacle could allow Bernie to revisit Biden’s vote in 2003 and his hawkish foreign policy.
I am also beginning to get the sense – and it may pass, lol – that the events of the next 6-10 months are going to be explosive and highly polarizing. I don’t know if a moderate will be able to survive. And God help the Democrats (and us all) if we get to the convention without a clear winner.
15% threshold is likely to shut him out. Iowa is weird though so it may look like he won delegates on Feb 3, but delegates aren’t actually pledged until the state Democratic party convention on June 13. He has almost no hope of delegates from NH.
e.g. 2012 Republican Iowa Caucus
In January CNN projected:
Rick Santorum - 7 del
Mitt Romney - 7 del
Ron Paul - 7 del
Newt Gingrich - 2 del
Unprojected - 5 del
Final results in June:
Ron Paul - 22 del
Mitt Romney - 6 del
Thats very cute that your interest in politicians is how folksy and relate-able they are rather than their policy agenda. But liberals are the most educated political demographic out there, and tend to believe in science. Also writing off economists as ‘wrong’ may work on Trumps base but its not going to work on the democratic base. So I think that will hurt Warren too.
While most of Sanders and Warrens policies will never happen, not even with a democratic congress the payments for plans have been outlined.
That’s because the Ron Paul fanatics all gave long speeches about Paul. That went on so long many people got mad and went home and that’s why Paul got the most votes. The Paul nutjobs pulled that same stunt in other caucus states.
I have a degree in economics so I do care about the policy wonk side of candidates. But, I’m also aware that many people vote strictly on how they feel, policies be damned. If they’re mad as hell and not going to take it anymore, then a Bernie would appeal. I think a lot of the extreme vitriol toward Pete was the jealousy over the smartest kid in the class.
Not sure what the context there was, but of course economists are wrong. Economists fundamentally disagree with each other all the time, and they can’t all be right. This isn’t some hard science where all well-informed people agree about the basic principles.
Yeah, just looking at the graph lines, Warren’s decline seems to have coincided with Buttigieg’s rise, so he’s presumably getting many of her voters. Not really sure how that thought process works, tbh.
My hope/WAG is that Warren’s core supporters are more ideologically driven than the ones who are currently deserting her, so they would be more likely to go to Bernie. But I have no data to support that.
So other than Bloomberg, who of course wasn’t running in October, Sanders does seem to have profited the most from (or at least coincident with) Warren’s decline.
Of course, it’s also possible that many of Warren’s core supporters are ideological progressives who were supporting her precisely because they can’t stand Bernie, so…