Biden allies attack Warren's electability

[5starlib]

While Warren won reelection easily in 2018, Biden’s backers point to her performance among independent and blue-collar voters as evidence she’ll fail to appeal to similar voters in the Rust Belt — just as Hillary Clinton did in 2016.

“The grave concern of many of us Democrats in Massachusetts is that in many of the counties where Sen. Warren underperforms, they are demographically and culturally similar to voters in key swing states,” said state Rep. John Rogers, who backs Biden.

“The tangible fear here,” Rogers said, “is that these Massachusetts counties are bellwethers for states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio — key states that Democrats can't afford to lose in the battle to beat President Trump.”

[link:https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/15/joe-biden-elizabeth-warren-massachusetts-electable-1494580|]

[blm]

1. Gee, another heroic attack Warren post.

What a great Democrat. Great DUer. Great American. So heroic.

Warren can handle the bullshitters. So can we.

Dig.

Dig.

Dig.

Dig.

[5starlib]

4. This is a legit article, not like some BS such Biden is a racist

That I see throughout this forum and is tolerated. Don't come for me.

This is a legit article as Warren underperformed in some counties in Massachusetts that are demographically similar to counties that she would need to win in swing states.

[redstateblues]

8. The reality it that Warren is tied with Trump in rust belt WI

Joe is up by 9. Warren has not demonstrated she can win back the rust belt

[floppyboo]

2. I can think of a few things Warren and Clinton have in common, and none are relevant to politics

[still_one]

3. and some of the other candidate's "allies" give their reasons why Biden won't be elected. This is

the typical Politico reporting, to try and put emphasis on division between Democrats, when this is simply typical primary posturing that occurs in competitive races

[Thekaspervote]

5. Politico.... divide and conquer

[still_one]

6. While they report things that do happen, they sure go out of their way to put emphasis especially on

those stories that tend to divide more than others

[pnwmom]

7. And here's an opposite point of view from MA insiders.

https://medium.com/gus_67169/the-hidden-story-behind-elizabeth-warrens-big-victory-a5d0cd181c95

In 2012, Elizabeth’s first-ever run for office was a very competitive race, that featured tens of millions in TV ads, a massive field and political operation, and an incredible amount of national and local media interest as Senate control hung in the balance. In the Massachusetts 2018 general election, despite the best efforts of both parties, there wasn’t a single competitive, high-profile race on the general election ballot. Despite that, Elizabeth received a nearly 7 percent higher vote share than 2012, while improving over Hillary Clinton’s 2016 vote share. Not a lot of Democrats running for Senate in 2018 saw such an increase in their vote share from 2012 — in fact, the data suggests quite the opposite.

Folks who don’t know much about our state often assume everyone here is a Democrat — but, of course, Elizabeth beat an extremely popular incumbent Republican in 2012, and we’ve only had one Democratic governor since 1991. And while it’s true that Massachusetts is Democratic-leaning in nationalized federal elections, our state is not particularly elastic at the margins of the electorate. Our conservatives are extremely conservative (Donald Trump trounced his opponents in the 2016 Republican primary here) and they aren’t interested in voting for Democrats. Consider the last three presidential races in the state:
2008: Obama 61.8% — McCain 35.99%
2012: Obama 60.65% — Romney 37.51%
2016: Clinton 60.0% — Trump 32.8%

SNIP

The small differences in these margins don’t tell you much about the relative strength or weakness of these candidates nationally. After all, the weakest of these performances came from Trump, who won nationally, and the strongest came from Romney, who lost nationally. Taken together, though, the margins strongly suggest 60 percent or so is more or less the ceiling for a Democrat in a nationalized race in Massachusetts. And make no mistake — Elizabeth’s campaign was about as nationalized a race as you can have here without literally running for President. She has sky-high name recognition in the state, regularly spars with the President, openly contemplated running against him, and her actual opponent, Geoff Diehl was Donald Trump’s campaign co-chair in 2016. It’s no surprise that her numbers are nearly identical to the last three presidential elections.

2018: Warren 60.3% — Diehl 36.2%

While the overall margins aren’t that interesting, some of the vote breakdown is. Elizabeth improved a bit on Hillary Clinton’s performance overall, and in two key regional categories — rural areas and racially diverse areas — that improvement was substantial. In the 87 towns classified as rural, for example, Elizabeth saw on average a 6 percentage point improvement over Hillary Clinton’s vote share. And in Massachusetts’ most racially-diverse cities and towns (defined as those where more than 20% of the registered electorate are voters of color) Elizabeth gained 1.7% overall from Hillary Clinton’s vote share.

[Thekaspervote]

10. Here's a current 538 poll that interest you

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/massachusetts/

JB: 26%
EW 24%

[pnwmom]

11. So they're within the margin of error. Makes sense,

since Obama was very popular in MA, and Biden's running as Obama's VP.

[Demsrule86]

13. We are talking about voters similar to rust belt voters...not rural voters and the numbers

show why Warren is unlikely to carry the states we need in the Mid West...MI, WI and PA.

[at140]

9. Thank you, I needed a good laugh nt

[Demsrule86]

14. I don't care for politico much but in this case,they are correct...Warren will not appeal

sufficiently to rust belt voters in a general.

[blm]

16. Horseshyt

[Claritie Pixie]

18. Tell that to my blue dog Democrat parents. They love her because what she says makes sense.

She has won them over with her plans and her ability to explain them in a way everyone can understand.

[crazytown]

15. Politico: Democrats in disarray!

Grave concern butterfly flakes.

[corbettkroehler]

17. I Support Sanders And Find This Pathetic

If pulling 20,000 New Yorkers to a public rally roughly 6 months before the Iowa caucuses doesn't prove Warren's ability to generate enthusiasm, I don't know what would.

My money's on Sanders but were Warren our nominee, she would CRUSH Herr Drumpf, crush him, and my vote would be 1 of 100,000,000+ for the Bay State senator!