If the Caucus was tonight, in the arena, he would win.
For whatever it’s worth, Twitter reaction to her speech tonight was very positive.
CA values will kill any presidential candidate
But they’re pretty good for California.CA values will kill any presidential candidate
I'm pretty sure CA values money most. Can you elaborate to the contrary?CA values will kill any presidential candidate
You’re on fire tonight. Stay safeBut they’re pretty good for California.
Not me. Wildfires are no joke but the overwhelming majority of Californians never have to deal with them.You’re on fire tonight. Stay safe
I think Bernie has a real shot. But DNC will almost certainly neuter him somehow again if he gains too much momentum.Bernie continues to poll very well.
If Bernie had quit the race after his heart attack, wouldn’t Warren be the commanding favorite right now?
Probably but that’s no different than if Biden or Pete dropped out. I’m curious to see how things shift over the upcoming weeks as Booker, Castro, Harris and probably Klobuchar drop out. I see all of them as more centrist and while none of them have great numbers if all of their supporters go to Biden or Pete, I think it makes that candidate the short term favorite.Bernie continues to poll very well.
If Bernie had quit the race after his heart attack, wouldn’t Warren be the commanding favorite right now?
The key here IMO is not Warren’s overall positions or personal appeal, but very specifically Medicare for All. And it’s not the threat of a middle class tax increase which Warren attempted to put to bed this weekend. It’s that a lot of people are satisfied with the insurance plans they have and don’t want to see them replaced. And this includes a lot of union workers in the swing states who negotiated their insurance as part of their contracts- these folks, who normally vote Democrat, really don’t want Medicare for All.Now THIS is a scary poll at a year out from the election. The battleground states. One poll, but good God, nominate someone to get this guy out of there, please.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/one-year-from-election-trump-trails-biden-but-leads-warren-in-battlegrounds.html
Spending 2 years talking about Russia to remove him from office, then moving onto impeachment to remove him from office hasn't done much to convince voters that the Democratic nominee is a better alternative, or represents a meaningful improvement to their lives. I wonder why that is.Now THIS is a scary poll at a year out from the election. The battleground states. One poll, but good God, nominate someone to get this guy out of there, please.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/one-year-from-election-trump-trails-biden-but-leads-warren-in-battlegrounds.html
Bernie continues to poll very well.
If Bernie had quit the race after his heart attack, wouldn’t Warren be the commanding favorite right now?
Bernie's 15-20% is locked-in like Trump's 40-45%. They both benefited from the ABCs in 2016. Sanders hasn't got the anyone-but vote this time and ain't going nowhere. No wax, no wane. Since this is his last relevance, however, he'll go to the end as the conscience of the Party.I think Bernie has a real shot. But DNC will almost certainly neuter him somehow again if he gains too much momentum.
That’s horrifying. The EC is such an enormous advantage for the GOP.Now THIS is a scary poll at a year out from the election. The battleground states. One poll, but good God, nominate someone to get this guy out of there, please.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/one-year-from-election-trump-trails-biden-but-leads-warren-in-battlegrounds.html
But isn’t that what the founders intended? They didn’t have the current GOP in mind of course, but it seems to me that they wanted to protect rural areas which might be outvoted by big cities.That’s horrifying. The EC is such an enormous advantage for the GOP.
Disagree with this. Bernie and Warren are both proponents of M4A (and I'd argue that Bernie is a more passionate one than Warren), but for some reason Bernie keeps doing better in general election polls. Very odd! https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/one-year-from-election-trump-trails-biden-but-leads-warren-in-battlegrounds.htmlThe key here IMO is not Warren’s overall positions or personal appeal, but very specifically Medicare for All. And it’s not the threat of a middle class tax increase which Warren attempted to put to bed this weekend. It’s that a lot of people are satisfied with the insurance plans they have and don’t want to see them replaced. And this includes a lot of union workers in the swing states who negotiated their insurance as part of their contracts- these folks, who normally vote Democrat, really don’t want Medicare for All.
Elysha Savarese, 26, works in victims advocacy in Florida. She voted for Mr. Trump and said she would not do so again. But she wouldn't vote for Ms. Warren, either:
"There's just something about her that I don't like," she said. "I just don't feel like she's a genuine candidate. I find her body language to be very off-putting. She's very cold. She's basically a Hillary Clinton clone."
As for female presidential candidates in general, she said, "They're super unlikable."
If she can't vote for women in general, then hopefully she's an outlier. Unless you're suggesting that a woman simply can't be elected President?Disagree with this. Bernie and Warren are both proponents of M4A (and I'd argue that Bernie is a more passionate one than Warren), but for some reason Bernie keeps doing better in general election polls. Very odd! https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/one-year-from-election-trump-trails-biden-but-leads-warren-in-battlegrounds.html
Not necessarily, my point is that you can’t just chalk up Warren’s poor performance in general election polls to her support of M4A because another pro-M4A candidate consistently polls better than her in most states. I think that gap is probably a gender penalty.If she can't vote for women in general, then hopefully she's an outlier. Unless you're suggesting that a woman simply can't be elected President?
The number of people who would never vote for a woman to be President is still shockingly high.Not necessarily, my point is that you can’t just chalk up Warren’s poor performance in general election polls to her support of M4A because another pro-M4A candidate consistently polls better than her in most states. I think that gap is probably a gender penalty.
https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-60-percent-republicans-dont-want-woman-president-lifetime-poll-902254The number of people who would never vote for a woman to be President is still shockingly high.
like 20% think they are in the 1%If we can have the 99% united against the 1%, that's much closer to united than we have now.
While 99% of the 1% plead poverty.like 20% think they are in the 1%
I don't think this is helpful.MSDNC @MSDNCNews
#BREAKING:
Elizabeth Warren releases new, must-see campaign ad highlighting the Senator’s vast knowledge of her own Medicare For All plan.
Wow!
It is a joke from an obvious parody account. No need to fret over fake news panic.I don't think this is helpful.
I think its made to appear to be from MSNBC - which it obviously is not.
I think it purports to be a campaign Ad from Warren - which it is not.
I think it has a lot to do with personality. Both are relatively fresh faces to the national scene, when the key alternatives are Biden and Sanders.I’m not really seeing why somebody who prefers Liz Warren would also be interested in Pete Buttigieg, unless their vote is based primarily on personality and charisma. Policy wise they’re distinctly different.
Sure. But then label it as such.It is a joke from an obvious parody account. No need to fret over fake news panic.
I don't thinks so! I think they both see pretty much the same end goal. The difference is that Warren wants to jump to that end game in fewer increments while Buttigieg is more of an incrementalist. Absent a crisis this nation is always small increments (which favors Mayor Pete), but would he "let a good crisis go to waste" and remain an incrementalist? Believing that she would absolutely seize an opportunity would favor Elizabeth (and Bernie - Bernie's entire pitch is that we already in this crisis which isn't as helpful so far this time around).I’m not really seeing why somebody who prefers Liz Warren would also be interested in Pete Buttigieg, unless their vote is based primarily on personality and charisma. Policy wise they’re distinctly different.
Well, half the joke is thinking you’re walking into a real ad and realizing (the cheesy music, the multiple ‘wow’ edits, the parody ‘msdnc’ account) that it’s not a real indepth walkthrough of her plan. It’s just a joke.Sure. But then label it as such.
Say: "I thought this was funny, and sums up how I think about Warren's plan"
Don't try to pass it off as "Elizabeth Warren releases new, must-see campaign ad highlighting the Senator’s vast knowledge of her own Medicare For All plan." Because that is not what the clip was.
Fake news spreads when we allow obvious false messaging to become mainstream.
How does this work, like options trading?I just checked into predictit - Iowa market has reacted strongly - presumably to Quinnipiac Poll:
Warren $0.34
Buttigieg $0.32
Sanders $0.23
Biden $0.12
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/5241/Who-will-win-the-2020-Iowa-Democratic-caucuses