[Premium Post] Elizabeth Warren lacks the leadership skills to be President -- what are her accomplishments in life? What people has she actually led? What tough decisions has she made? And lying about her race to advance her professional career is disqualifying. She took an actual person of color's seat at Harvard. There is simply no excusing that. And her policy positions are way out of the mainstream. Libs around here eat it up, but independents are repulsed by the Green New Deal, wealth taxes, gun bans, and many other extreme positions that she has staked out. The liberals are truly setting themselves up for another failure. I love it! GOOD DAY
I think what happens with Warren is this. People don't know that much about her. Her opponents trot out sayings like her ideas won't work, they won't be paid for unless we all lose all of our money. So her poll numbers aren't that high. But she's very good at showing how her programs will work based on easily understandable specifics and logic. The negatives largely go away. She has a track record of tackling big industry and going against the system, not in a bombastic blustery way, but in a way that makes sense and is effective. Her poll numbers rise. Almost everyone who says they don't want her to be the nominee says it because of what they think other people will do. It's rarely because they don't like her themselves or dislike her ideas. It's almost always because they say the general populace won't vote for her.
Her message is correct. Her urgency is actually justified. She's the smartest person in the race. But her presentation is unsettling. It worrisome how she would be perceived by the average information voter. Is it "Woman of action!" or "Preachy Teacher" ? And, I feel the same way about Bernie. 50 years of corporate controlled information, a trillion dollars of sponsored studies and lobbying, that's a big mountain to tunnel through.
I agree. I've said it before, but I worry that for your average pay-attention-once-every-four-years voter (and Fox viewer) will just see Warren as the crazy aunt ranting about kale salad and her juice cleanse at thanksgiving. In that same sense, Bernie can be dismissed or perceived as the crazy "socialist" uncle ranting about the same stories at Thanksgiving for the last 20 years.
With your same logic, what do you think these same voters would think about Buttigeig? Or Yang? Or other niche candidates? However much we may agree with what they are saying, these folks have a snowball's chance in hell as national candidates with the "once every four years" voters.
I think our culture loves "new" things and "new" faces. Hence why some of the same people can vote for Obama and then vote for Trump. When a nation and culture decline, everyone wants "change" and "different," IMHO. I think Butti or Yang would have a chance in the general, especially on an electoral college map. But they seem to have zero chance in the primary. Just my 2 cents, worth probably less than that.
That was my point earlier. Almost nobody is worried about Warren themselves. They only worry that other voters won't like her. I believe that she has a track record of winning people over the more familiar with her they become. That doesn't mean it will continue to work the same way, but I think it's better to not always worry about what other voters will do.
I have not watched one debate and I am fully aware of most of the candidates so ratings from debates are not a great metric. i have no idea what her Senate campaign has to do with this primary. Massachusetts is a blue state so is not big a deal she won there. Biden is leading Warren in her home state of Massachusetts, how does that square with your name recognition theory. She is also losing to Biden in New Hampshire. I am not saying she can't win but your initial argument of Biden leading on name recognition is suspect when she is not even leading in her home state.
Warren's best chance is still that there is a small group of the billionaire/media elite that will back her if they feel that she is the only way to defeat Sanders. We are already seeing the media hedging their bets if Status Quo Joe falters as Establishment favorites such as , Kamala, the Beto, the Mayor Pete have. Enough of the billionaire/media elite trust that Warren will be very willing to settle for small changes like Obama. Warren is already the big favorite of the liberal, highly educated, primarily white older donor class-- the demographic the Clintons and Obama largely catered to. Warren is in the middle of Biden and Sanders the other front runners. Warren was totally angling to be Hillary's VP and if she had done so, we might not have had Trump. It would not be too surprising but somewhat disappointing to see Warren cut a deal to be Biden's VP if he would agree to larger changes to his beloved Affordable Care Act, a bit more complicated changes to Wall Street regulation and a few "Green New Deal" style initiatives. Of course Warren could join up with Sanders. I think she would accept VP but doubt she would choose Sanders is she is at the top of the ticket given her extreme cautiousness and her already announced plans to seek out the usual large corporate donors if she gets the nomination.
It isn't the only indicator, nor is it an indicator for everyone. It could be an indicator. It is also comparable to presidential debates between the nominees. Her Senate campaign shows a track record of her efforts to win an election. It has to do with her ability to build towards victory. Biden leading Warren in Mass could be important. It could also be because it is a blue state so no big deal as you said.
It was only one election that is not a track record. Why does Mass being a blue state have anything to do with Biden leading Warren. How does that fit your name recognition theory?
It is when the pattern is repeating itself right now. She started out way down has significantly improved throughout the process. It has to do with it because a progressive state might favor the candidate seen as more progressive. I believe my theory was only partially name recognition but the larger part was a familiarity with Warren, her record, and her actual proposals.
Except for the Senate races, it's just the "Swing' states that matter at all. And the centrist voters in them. They won't do the intellectual work to listen to what Ms. Warren is maybe over-emphatically saying. Joe's the known commodity, the comfortable status quo aided by the Obama nostalgia.
The more progressive candidate is Warren so she should be leading in Mass right? Warren is a senator from Mass how more familiar can you get, she has campaigned twice in that state for a statewide office. Maybe just maybe Biden has more staying power than you give him credit for.
Your discounting her populace message it's a misnomer that her message will not resonate in those states.
