Jump to content
270soft Forum
admin_270

Warren hits +6% in latest YouGov poll

Recommended Posts

Warren has gotten her strongest poll in the primaries yet, at +6% over Biden, 28-22, in the latest Economist-YouGov poll.

Adding the latest Monmouth (Warren at +3, 28-25) the RCP average is now Biden +1.7%. This is the closest the race has been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Trump vs Hillary Part Two

Hillary Clinton was not truly a Progressive, anymore than Donald Trump was (and is) truly a Conservative. Clinton is not all like Warren. Clinton is a pro-Wall Street War Hawk with a flimsy façade of milksop Liberalism and her husband's "Southern charm" smoothing over her rougher edges (roles that are often reversed in gender in political married couples).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Trump vs Hillary Part Two

They aren't similar. It's almost like you think all women are the same or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Patine said:

Hillary Clinton was not truly a Progressive, anymore than Donald Trump was (and is) truly a Conservative. Clinton is not all like Warren. Clinton is a pro-Wall Street War Hawk with a flimsy façade of milksop Liberalism and her husband's "Southern charm" smoothing over her rougher edges (roles that are often reversed in gender in political married couples).

 

14 hours ago, vcczar said:

They aren't similar. It's almost like you think all women are the same or something.

Elizabeth Warren will do better than Hillary Clinton if the average voter is smart...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jayavarman said:

 

Elizabeth Warren will do better than Hillary Clinton if the average voter is smart...

There are several reasons why Warren should do better than Clinton. 

  • She has higher favorability than Clinton, and will likely stay higher than Clinton--much higher, in fact. This also means she's likely to be viewed much more favorable than Trump. 
  • She isn't a programmed speaker like Clinton, she at least appears much more sincere. 
  • She's far less corrupt and much more honest than Clinton or Trump. If the worst thing she's ever done is misidentified her DNA when applying to college, then she's in a pretty good shape. 
  • She is populist unlike Clinton, who is establishment. In an Age of Populism, avoiding a populist wave is probably a recipe for defeat, especially in states with lots of populist voters.  If Warren is the nominee, she might have an advantage since Trump has arguably created a new establishment, and so isn't the change candidate, which leaves Warren as the only nominee for change. 
  • Warren is much more optimistic, authentic and far less insulting than Clinton. 
  • While neither Clinton or Warren are personally charismatic, the message and ideas that Warren brings have at least an attraction to potential left-leaning voters that Clinton's messages did not. 
  • Back to authenticity, Warren has an authenticity with other people that Clinton does not have. Warren spends hours at events taking photos with attendees. This is something Clinton did not do. I also think Warren's experience as a professor will help her connect to younger voters in a way Clinton couldn't. She was very student-centric as a speaker in classrooms. 

There's probably other factors as well. I can't think of a single reason why should would be WORSE than Clinton. Perhaps someone that would never vote for Clinton or Warren might say, "she's too far left of Clinton" or "she's from Massachusetts, and nominees from Massachusetts lose like Kerry and Dukakis did." But I think everyone that voted for Clinton will vote for Warren, and I feel certain that some that voted for Stein--and possibly Johnson and/or even Trump--will vote for Warren. That's a net gain. I think it will be less common that a Clinton voter will vote Trump, or that a Stein voter will vote Trump over Warren. I do think some Johnson voters might choose Trump over Warren but not many. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jayavarman said:

 

Elizabeth Warren will do better than Hillary Clinton if the average voter is smart...

Neither Clinton nor Trump would have ever been nominated if the average voter was smart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, vcczar said:

I can't think of a single reason why should would be WORSE than Clinton.

I agree with most of your points as far as Warren being a better candidate.

The major ? with Warren for me is whether she's too far to the left, and whether she will move to the centre if she wins the primaries. Perhaps everyone who voted for Clinton would vote for Warren regardless of how far left her policies are, but I'm skeptical of this.

She lacks charisma, but has a likability as far as I can tell - perceived authenticity as you mention I think is part of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

I agree with most of your points as far as Warren being a better candidate.

The major ? with Warren for me is whether she's too far to the left, and whether she will move to the centre if she wins the primaries. Perhaps everyone who voted for Clinton would vote for Warren regardless of how far left her policies are, but I'm skeptical of this.

She lacks charisma, but has a likability as far as I can tell - perceived authenticity as you mention I think is part of that.

I think she's doing a good job of normalizing Progressive politics, except for left-leaning voters. It doesn't hurt that AOC, Omar, Sanders, etc., come off as radical, which gives her the appearance of being more reasonable from a quasi-skeptical perspective. While they come off as angry, she comes off as excited and positive. I think this is purposeful. She wants to invite, rather than shame. I do expect her to move to the center in some areas. She was a Republican as a younger adult and was born and raised in Oklahoma. She knows what she has to do to stretch that umbrella. She isn't a purist like Sanders, AOC, and many others.

She's been 1,000 times better on campaign than I imagined. I thought she would be intolerably dorky, instead of just dorky. I didn't expect an optimistic and enthusiastic message (sort of helped by the dorkiness actually). I knew she wouldn't be charismatic, but she's figure out a way to avoid this fault via the optimistic, policy-driven campaign. She admitted to have a kind of stage fright from campaigning, which causes her voice to shake. It still sort of does, but she doesn't sound afraid anymore, like she used to sound. She's gotten better, and I assume she'll get better still. 

I think she's a good contrast too. Clinton, like Trump, was untrustworthy, too ambitious, and self-promoting. Warren is at least good at hiding these things, if she's any of them. Voters have much more of a choice now. 

I think picking the VP will be crucial too. Warren will satisfy Progressives, so she can pick someone right of her rather comfortably. Clinton picked Kaine, which was a major mistake. That's like Warren picking Gabbard--a double anti-establishment ticket. Speaking of which, I think she should pick someone not in Washington, considering how unpopular the impeachment Congress will be, even if they are on the right side of history in their fight. She should pick a Gov. Someone like Gov. Bullock of MT would be good. If she had to pick anyone in Washington, she should make an offer to Joe Manchin, who would be the last Dem VP I'd want, but he'd help beat Trump if the election looks like a tossup on Convention Day. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think she's doing a good job of normalizing Progressive politics, except for left-leaning voters. It doesn't hurt that AOC, Omar, Sanders, etc., come off as radical, which gives her the appearance of being more reasonable from a quasi-skeptical perspective. While they come off as angry, she comes off as excited and positive. I think this is purposeful. She wants to invite, rather than shame. I do expect her to move to the center in some areas. She was a Republican as a younger adult and was born and raised in Oklahoma. She knows what she has to do to stretch that umbrella. She isn't a purist like Sanders, AOC, and many others.

She's been 1,000 times better on campaign than I imagined. I thought she would be intolerably dorky, instead of just dorky. I didn't expect an optimistic and enthusiastic message (sort of helped by the dorkiness actually). I knew she wouldn't be charismatic, but she's figure out a way to avoid this fault via the optimistic, policy-driven campaign. She admitted to have a kind of stage fright from campaigning, which causes her voice to shake. It still sort of does, but she doesn't sound afraid anymore, like she used to sound. She's gotten better, and I assume she'll get better still. 

I think she's a good contrast too. Clinton, like Trump, was untrustworthy, too ambitious, and self-promoting. Warren is at least good at hiding these things, if she's any of them. Voters have much more of a choice now. 

I think picking the VP will be crucial too. Warren will satisfy Progressives, so she can pick someone right of her rather comfortably. Clinton picked Kaine, which was a major mistake. That's like Warren picking Gabbard--a double anti-establishment ticket. Speaking of which, I think she should pick someone not in Washington, considering how unpopular the impeachment Congress will be, even if they are on the right side of history in their fight. She should pick a Gov. Someone like Gov. Bullock of MT would be good. If she had to pick anyone in Washington, she should make an offer to Joe Manchin, who would be the last Dem VP I'd want, but he'd help beat Trump if the election looks like a tossup on Convention Day. 

 

It still surprises me that Sanders is considered so "extreme left" in the United States. His platform is very similar to the New Democratic Party of Canada, who are the third biggest party in the country, have been Official Opposition once Federally, and had government in several Provinces, and are now considered a mainstream party, alongside the Liberal and Conservative Parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jayavarman said:

 

Elizabeth Warren will do better than Hillary Clinton if the average voter is smart...

My wife tells a story from middle school in which an undesired guy approached her friend and said “If you were my girlfriend, we would have SEX!!!”

To which my wife’s friend replied:

”Big ‘if,’ buddy.  Big, BIG ‘if.’”

You also have a really big “if.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

My wife tells a story from middle school in which an undesired guy approached her friend and said “If you were my girlfriend, we would have SEX!!!”

To which my wife’s friend replied:

”Big ‘if,’ buddy.  Big, BIG ‘if.’”

You also have a really big “if.”

You've told this story before, the two participants in it were different last time... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

It still surprises me that Sanders is considered so "extreme left" in the United States. His platform is very similar to the New Democratic Party of Canada, who are the third biggest party in the country, have been Official Opposition once Federally, and had government in several Provinces, and are now considered a mainstream party, alongside the Liberal and Conservative Parties.

I completely agree with you. I have my personal beliefs, but I also understand how most Americans are going to take someone like Sanders or AOC in the battleground states that are needed to win the election under the current rules for winning an election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

His platform is very similar to the New Democratic Party of Canada, who are the third biggest party in the country

Canada is to the left of the U.S. The NDP is the most left of the 3 major parties in Canada. They are left of left relative to the U.S., which is pretty much where Sanders is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Canada is to the left of the U.S.

You'd never know this in rural Alberta where my Aunt and Uncle live... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also important to note that provincial NDP is not necessarily the same as federal NDP. Notley's NDP is to the right of Singh's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Also important to note that provincial NDP is not necessarily the same as federal NDP. Notley's NDP is to the right of Singh's.

Oh, I know. But she was a lot better than Klein or Kenney, as far as I see things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I agree with most of your points as far as Warren being a better candidate.

The major ? with Warren for me is whether she's too far to the left, and whether she will move to the centre if she wins the primaries. Perhaps everyone who voted for Clinton would vote for Warren regardless of how far left her policies are, but I'm skeptical of this.

She lacks charisma, but has a likability as far as I can tell - perceived authenticity as you mention I think is part of that.

I agree.  My concern is whether she is too far left.  She may be a very different person and candidate than Hillary Clinton, but that matters not if she can effectively replace Hillary as the next big boogeyman to terrify Republicans.

I believe Elizabeth Warren is smart, capable, and could be a great President.  I am not personally strongly opposed to anything in particular that she has proposed (I’ve never been that worried about policies anyway in elections, as they rarely survive first contact with the enemy.)

My only concern with Warren is this: Can she beat Donald Trump?

Im not convinced yet that the answer is yes — but she is my number two behind Pete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Patine said:

You've told this story before, the two participants in it were different last time... ;)

Go back and look — the story is the same.

I enjoy telling the story because it’s easily applicable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think she's doing a good job of normalizing Progressive politics, except for left-leaning voters. It doesn't hurt that AOC, Omar, Sanders, etc., come off as radical, which gives her the appearance of being more reasonable from a quasi-skeptical perspective. While they come off as angry, she comes off as excited and positive. I think this is purposeful. She wants to invite, rather than shame. I do expect her to move to the center in some areas. She was a Republican as a younger adult and was born and raised in Oklahoma. She knows what she has to do to stretch that umbrella. She isn't a purist like Sanders, AOC, and many others.

She's been 1,000 times better on campaign than I imagined. I thought she would be intolerably dorky, instead of just dorky. I didn't expect an optimistic and enthusiastic message (sort of helped by the dorkiness actually). I knew she wouldn't be charismatic, but she's figure out a way to avoid this fault via the optimistic, policy-driven campaign. She admitted to have a kind of stage fright from campaigning, which causes her voice to shake. It still sort of does, but she doesn't sound afraid anymore, like she used to sound. She's gotten better, and I assume she'll get better still. 

I think she's a good contrast too. Clinton, like Trump, was untrustworthy, too ambitious, and self-promoting. Warren is at least good at hiding these things, if she's any of them. Voters have much more of a choice now. 

I think picking the VP will be crucial too. Warren will satisfy Progressives, so she can pick someone right of her rather comfortably. Clinton picked Kaine, which was a major mistake. That's like Warren picking Gabbard--a double anti-establishment ticket. Speaking of which, I think she should pick someone not in Washington, considering how unpopular the impeachment Congress will be, even if they are on the right side of history in their fight. She should pick a Gov. Someone like Gov. Bullock of MT would be good. If she had to pick anyone in Washington, she should make an offer to Joe Manchin, who would be the last Dem VP I'd want, but he'd help beat Trump if the election looks like a tossup on Convention Day. 

 

I think you’ve successfully pinpointed why Warren has been successful in the primary.

But will it work in the general, when Bernie, AOC, and Omar are on her side?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I think you’ve successfully pinpointed why Warren has been successful in the primary.

But will it work in the general, when Bernie, AOC, and Omar are on her side?

GOP will focus on tying them to her, but she can just focus on her message rather than on personalities. She's more likely to campaign with Obama, Biden, and Dem leaders in WI, OH, MI, and possibly even with Never Trump Republicans than she is to campaign with Bernie, AOC, and Omar, if she find that they are hurting her electability. Avoiding Omar will be much harder, since she will be in MI often. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

This poll must come from a biased or manipulated sample. One conducted by Southam News (which owns the Edmonton Journal and the Calgary Herald, the two biggest newspapers in Alberta, itself) says 7-13% is the number who want to separate from Canada. But the National Post is a Toronto-based, somewhat incendiary and sensationalist rag (not as much as the various Sun newspapers of many Canadian cities and the former Sun News Network, but you can still see traces of that tendency, especially compared to their more sober competitor, the Globe and Mail).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think picking the VP will be crucial too. Warren will satisfy Progressives, so she can pick someone right of her rather comfortably. Clinton picked Kaine, which was a major mistake. That's like Warren picking Gabbard--a double anti-establishment ticket. Speaking of which, I think she should pick someone not in Washington, considering how unpopular the impeachment Congress will be, even if they are on the right side of history in their fight. She should pick a Gov. Someone like Gov. Bullock of MT would be good. If she had to pick anyone in Washington, she should make an offer to Joe Manchin, who would be the last Dem VP I'd want, but he'd help beat Trump if the election looks like a tossup on Convention Day. 

 

I don't agree with this at all. Warren has a very questionable past and certainly cannot be trusted to actually govern like a progressive (she'll most likely be an Obama 2.0 if she's elected). I honestly don't personally know a single progressive who doesn't realize Warren isn't as progressive as she campaigns as or about her questionable past. That's a lot of people who see right through her (and they're mostly not in love with Sanders so they're not "Bernie or Bust" voters, but view him as the only viable progressive running). Clinton losing in 2016 is proof that Democrats need the progressive vote to win, and I don't know if they get it if they nominate someone like Warren with a Veep candidate who isn't a proven progressive. Someone like Bullock or Manchin would be suicide if that's the case. I think she'd either need to go with Sanders or someone lesser-known, like Raul Grijalva. Andrew Gillum is another name that would come to mind for Warren, but I have questions as to his progressiveness as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren is also doing better in general election polls vs. Trump than she was before, which is noteworthy.  Most of Biden's appeal is based on being perceived as "electable" - but that argument could change, if Warren continues to show improvement against Trump.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-september-15-17-2019

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/sept-2-5-2019-washington-post-abc-news-poll/d4e18b36-79bf-492d-91e3-d1c7a49d37e2/

Warren's Oklahoma background and story of social mobility insulate her against the usual "elite academic East Coast ivory tower intellectual" attacks usually leveled by Republicans.  I also think Warren serves to unite both the Hillary and Bernie wings of the Democratic Party, in a way that most other candidates don't.

If she moves to the center in any way, I presume it will be on health care.  The "Medicare for all who want it" plan is a much easier sell for Americans than Medicare For All, and I think has a much likelier chance of success.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...