Unless something dramatic happens, I think Elizabeth Warren is going to run away with the nomination

[HerbChestnut]

She's gaining in every poll, her favorability ratings are among the best of any candidate with room to improve, she's energetic and well-spoken, and she's progressive. This thing could be over by Super Tuesday with Warren the undisputed winner.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. It's way too soon to make that assumption.

[customerserviceguy]

5. Agreed

Sen. Warren has not yet been shown to have attracted significant African-American support, which still favors Joe Biden. Also, there are the Bernie Sanders supporters who have shown a dogged determination to follow him until the end and beyond.

It could be that 40% of the delegates apportioned from the primaries and caucuses go to her, 35% go to Biden, and 20% stay in the Sanders camp by the time of the convention. Then, it comes down to the superdelegates on the second ballot. Do they go with the "revolutionary", or do they stick with the experienced hand who they might be more comfortable with?

[DownriverDem]

12. Then

trump wins a second term.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. I don't understand how suggesting it's too soon to conclude

that Warren wins the nomination necessarily leads to a conclusion that Trump wins the election.

[LeftTurn3623]

49. wow

pretty ugly statement. Lets try and scare people into voting for Biden.

[pangaia]

52. i must say, i am seeing more and more of that....

[Hortensis]

58. If you'd said Warren could throw congress to the Republicans,

I could believe you meant it. Biden electing Trump, nonsense of course.

To me the most worrisome problem with Warren, aside from her being a woman of course, is that she's seen as relatively extreme. Because her policies are. You haven't seen the right even begin to weigh in yet.

And then, if she were our nominee, and if she were elected president (huge ifs), since the electorate has often divided power between parties, I'm afraid even many who voted for her would vote to "balance" her with a Republican congress.

Most people still don't realize just how intensely corrupt and anti-democracy the Republicans have become. They're too bad for them to believe. Especially those who don't consider the big picture and think they fulfill their duty by choosing the candidate flavor they personally like best.

[monmouth4]

2. I think you are right and I'm a hopin'...n/t

[DownriverDem]

13. When

are folks going to focus on who can win the Electoral College? We have to win.

[BlueWI]

39. That naturally occurs after the primary.

To win in the GE, a candidate needs to win in the primaries. We haven't had a single primary yet. So we don't know who can win in the GE.

If Biden is such a safe choice, he should have no problem winning in the Democratic primaries.

[LeftTurn3623]

50. maybe people that support EW are focusing on that

Because the thing that scares me about Biden is people will just assume he will win but wont actually support him. There is no enthusiasm for Biden. He is this safe pick. I worry he cant get people to knock on doors for him or actually vote for him.

Warren creates excitement. More people come out to see her rallies.

[ritapria]

3. That is the way the race is currently trending

I am a Bernie supporter but this is what is going on . .It's not set in stone

[question everything]

4. One out of 5 Iowa caucus goers have not made up their minds

and, unless Warren drops the no private insurance, and all the freebies, we will lose.

[DownriverDem]

17. Yep

Also a candidate can lose Iowa and still win the nomination. All I care about is beating trump. It's not about like. it's about who can win the Electoral College.

[Thekaspervote]

20. Yup!! IA is not the end all it used to be!

[question everything]

38. Only two candidates won Iowa and then the White House

Bush Jr. in 2000 and Obama in 2008. OK, and Carter in 1976 cane second after "undecided" - or something.

[comradebillyboy]

6. Could be...

[Bleacher Creature]

7. I think you're right, and the numbers seem to work.

I can't remember who did the analysis, although I assume it was Nate Silver, but her position as the leading "second choice" candidate means that she's got more room to grow than the other candidates once the field narrows.

[HerbChestnut]

8. Yup, and Morning Consult now shows the same thing.

[blm]

9. Too soon. I'd prefer a slow, steady, solid campaign from her

Organization. Let all the candidates have a chance to find their footing and present their best case. Most of them can and will beat Trump. I want them all to do well. I want to see strength and unity at the end of this.

[HerbChestnut]

11. That's exactly what she's doing.

Her progress since the spring when she dipped to 5% in the polls has been steady. It's reaching a point now where she's in a (fairly) solid second place with a weak frontrunner ahead of her. It's her campaign to lose.

[blm]

14. I know, but, I really want more candidates to connect and

do well by giving it their best shot. Many of them may have crucial roles in the general election.

[BlueMTexpat]

62. I'm with you!

[BeyondGeography]

10. Something dramatic usually happens

I’d rather be holding her cards than anyone else’s at this point but no one votes for over four months and stuff happens.

That said, she continues to grow in stature and I’m looking forward to seeing more of the incredible qualities of vision and empathy that she displayed just in the past week at NYC and the LGBTQ forum in Iowa.

[PhoenixDem]

16. ummmmmm ... no

She is too far to the left and has no support among reliable African American voters in the South or Latinos is the mountain states.

She cannot possibly carry Texas with Beto there or California with Sen. Harris there.

Also, the MFA will sink her.

[HerbChestnut]

18. I think Beto will be out before Texas votes.

Kamala will probably stay in for California, but she's already losing there by significant margins according to multiple polls. Agree to disagree about Warren's political ideology being a disadvantage. The Democratic party is ready for a progressive candidate.

[Demsrule86]

22. The Democratic Party is mostly moderate...and we need more than Democrats to win 20.

She can't carry the rust belt and will lose badly. We could lose the moderates in the house if she is the candidate...I hope I am wrong but that is how I see it...I don't think she is doing that well though...the media talks her up and all but many polls show her solidly in third place even in the early states...MFA will hurt her too. I will vote for her if she is the nominee but I consider it unlikely which is a good thing ...we need to beat Trump.

[Tipperary]

43. She absolutely could win the "rust belt" as you persist in calling it.

I think I understand why you feel that way. Pretty obvious.

[Demsrule86]

48. I am clear about what I think so I hope you understand. We lost 16 in the rust belt...and

the blue wall rust belt states are our only path to the presidency in 20. We have no path to the presidency as it stands now without WI, MI and PA. This is true for future presidential elections also. We are in a tough spot...so I don't care how much a person likes a particular candidate. You have to be realistic about their chances to defeat Trump.

Some progressives seem to think Trump is so so bad anyone can beat him.That is not true. A sitting president is hard to take down, and Trump won with numbers not much different than now in 16. It is not time for a 'woke' party to nominate their progressive dream candidate but rather time for a politically savvy electorate to nominate someone who can win in the states we need for an EC victory...or Trump gets four more years, and God help us if this happens.

[LeftTurn3623]

54. hmmm

Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Warren
49.5 Warren 46.0 Trump - Warren +3.5 avg polls


Wisconsin: Trump vs. Warren - Tie 45/45 avg polls


Michigan: Trump vs. Warren

Warren 49 Trump 45 - Warren + 4 avg polls


So she is already winning in 2 of the 3 states and she is still pretty unknown. Her numbers will only increase.

But yet she cant win?

[vsrazdem]

56. This was what we did with moderates running. I don't see how progressives can do any worse.

Under Obama, Democrats suffer largest loss in power since Eisenhower ... Party has lost a net total of 13 Governorships and 816 state legislative seats since ... In 2010, Democrats lost 6 seats in the Senate and 63 seats in the Hous

[Demsrule86]

57. Again it had nothing to do with moderate or liberal...And our 2010 losses are for the same reason

Clinton lost in 94...healthcare. But at least this time we got something. This is why I don't want to start all over again with MFA. As for the states...for some unknown reason we got rid of Howard Dean who is a genius at fielding winning candidates in the states and nationally...we need a big tent...and your analysis leaves out the part about our senatorial losses were mostly in red to moderate states...and we won't regain those seats by moving left. The country took a hard right. Progressives can do much worse...we could put Trump in office and give him the house with a left leaning candidate and forfeit any shot at the Senate.

[PhoenixDem]

30. Texas is part of Super Tuesday and so is California

Also, most states that were holding caucuses (which allowed selective bullying by activists) have switched to primaries which are more democratic. This will reflect the true power of the moderates.

[HerbChestnut]

33. Yup, aware of when Texas and California vote.

I think Beto will be out before then.

[PhoenixDem]

36. lol

[Celerity]

19. she trails Biden by 12 and 17 points in the MC and HarrisX new polls

FAR too early, and also not accurate atm to say she is

Elizabeth Warren is going to run away with the nomination

Biden is far closer to that than Warren. Warren also probably cannot beat Rump unless she tosses MFA into the shitter (as it simply cannot pass, even if we have 350 or so seats in the House and 53, 55 in the Senate.) Bernie is also in it to block her IMHO. His rabid, non-DU berners detest Warren (they think Warren is in in to block Sanders, roflmao), and it is only going to get worse from here on in.

IF she trashes MFA, then I MAY start to think her chances might go up, but she has highwe negatives compared to Biden amongst swing voters as well. The US is still a misogynistic nation at its highest political level (ie. voting for POTUS), just ask Clinton.

Focus group women like Warren's policies more than her

https://www.axios.com/elizabeth-warren-focus-group-wisconsin-swing-voters-f5d1d420-3076-4b49-99eb-fecfa93a97c2.html

[IronLionZion]

21. It often comes down to whose supporters are most enthusiastic

enough to show up in the cold winter in Iowa and New Hampshire to vote, and Warren has that.

After that, she can really unite the left and inspire high turnout since she doesn't have many haters on our side. Other top candidates have taken punches from each other and from the GOP. Warren has a steady progressive energy about her that people seem to like and not hate.

People should have hopefully gotten over their 2016 gender/Hillary issues by now. After all, people got over racial issues to turn out for Obama twice. They can vote for a qualified women to defeat Trump.

But we have to work for it.

[CTyankee]

23. Hillary WON the popular vote with something like 3 million votes more than Trump. she just

didn't win the EC. So the idea that a woman running for President couldn't get votes has already been refuted.

[IronLionZion]

25. We need to win the electoral college too

and then we can see about abolishing the electoral college later on

[CTyankee]

26. Yep, we need an EC strategy. No doubt that is being worked on by our party leaders NOW...

[Demsrule86]

24. I do not see any evidence that people are over their gender issues...

[IronLionZion]

45. Trump is so bad and Warren is so good, that people should set aside their issues and vote

People voted for Obama, they can vote for Warren

[Demsrule86]

47. They won't do that. Look at the GOP folks still supporting Trump because he gives them

judges and policy...a perceived leftist candidate is going to lose and badly in my view. The voters we need will vote for someone they don't think will shut down banks and Wall Street etc- a perceived moderate like Biden. But the policies Warren has adopted particularly her support of MFA will hurt her in a general.

[Blue_true]

27. I tend to agree with you, but.

Her position on healthcare has to potential to blunt her momentum. I honestly am astounded that a person who has such a gift for understanding complex issues and politics, can't see that MFA at this point is a loser. Maybe she will gravitate more toward where Buttigieg is at, but she need to come up with a good explanation, because her opponents are going to nail her on that shift.

[IronLionZion]

46. Start with calling for MFA, then compromise down to a public option

[Blue_true]

65. I think that is what she would do, get everything possible.

Fortunately, with the ACA is place, she would have a lower base that she would want to stay well above once everything is done.

[beachbumbob]

28. Polls don't indicate that all, sounds like wishful thinking

[Joe941]

29. Nope. That's all I can really say here.

[gristy]

31. the reported news on her campaign and on the recent polls is leading me to believe this too

in particular the reported gains in her polling over the past few weeks (months?). the trends certainly seem to be in her favor...

[highplainsdem]

32. Don't think so. Polls indicate she's leading with Dems who describe themselves as "very liberal"

but they're a minority in the party.

And her support for MFA is especialy problematic for her. Not only is it less popular than the public option, even among Dems, but it's becoming more and more obvious that she can't answer questions about whether taxes on the midddle class will have to go up to pay for it.

[Hoyt]

34. Wish I felt the same about General Election.

[Fiendish Thingy]

35. Especially if she wins, or Biden loses IA, NH, and NV

The media narrative will shift significantly, altering perceptions of momentum and electability.

[HerbChestnut]

40. If she wins IA

She will win NH. Winning both will give her an excellent shot at winning SC, but even a strong 2nd there will propel her into NV. If Biden falters any time before then, which I think is likely, she runs away with it early.

[5starlib]

37. She won't win without the support from black voters

If there's a racial split in the party, the party won't nominate someone will poor ties to African-Americans. Polling at 10% is not going to cut it. Also, she will get swept in the southern primaries like Hillary did to Bernie in 2016.

[Garrett78]

41. With more than 4 months to go before the Iowa caucus and so few minds made up...

...it's way too early to suggest anyone will run away with the nomination.

Warren could win both Iowa and New Hampshire but fail to win enough support among Black voters to come anywhere close to being nominated. On the other hand, if she were to win both IA and NH, Biden's support in South Carolina would likely collapse. But not necessarily to Warren's benefit. Over the next 4 months, we'll more than likely see a candidate or 2 surge, while others lose support.

Once again, I want to express my disgust with the fact that we start off with 2 states that don't remotely reflect our electorate. At some point, that has got to change. Some traditions need to die.

[myohmy2]

42. "Unless something dramatic happens..."

...something dramatic will happen, we just don't know what it is yet...

...let's see how she'll handle it...


...

[zackymilly]

51. Let's go, Liz!

[Politicub]

53. I think so, too.

I believe she has the best ideas and is the best person to take on Trump.

While Biden is leading in several polls, he hasn't had momentum on his side.

Warren is taking nothing for granted. She is has been tireless in her pursuit of the nomination. That doggedness is going to pay off when voters start going to the polls next year.

[Loki Liesmith]

55. Doubtful but whatever

Everyone likes their candidate.

[mvd]

59. Too early to know, but I am very happy about her surge!

Never waver from who you are, Elizabeth. Time to have a defender of progressive principles as our nominee and the President. I still am a Bernie guy but I think this time she has the best chance against Trump. If she wavered on her principles, I would vote for Bernie again.

[lambchopp59]

60. Trivia nugget

I'm 100 percent fine with either one of the leading women.
Partially so we can claim to making history 100 years post triumph of the suffragettes.

[BootinUp]

61. Still a long way to go. And there are plenty

of folks she still needs to convince.

[Gothmog]

63. "Why Elizabeth Warren Is Trump's Weakest Opponent"

Link to tweet

Even if voters aren’t dwelling on policy specifics, their ideological perception of the candidates makes a huge difference. Democrats deliberately avoided invoking polarizing cultural issues when competing for swing districts last year—a strategy that allowed them to comfortably win back the House majority. The relative few who invoked a populist message like Warren’s lost winnable suburban seats.

It’s Politics 101: When there are more conservative (and moderate) voters than liberal ones, it’s very difficult to put together a winning coalition with just a progressive base. The only way to do it is by betting that Trump is so toxic that a critical majority of voters will automatically reject him. That strategy didn’t work well for Hillary Clinton in the last election.

Warren also carries other specific vulnerabilities into a matchup against Trump. She currently relies on a faction of white liberal support, struggling to win over African-American voters to her side. If Democrats believe the key to winning is by rallying their diverse base, it’s hard to see Warren accomplishing that goal. Her nomination threatens to be a double-whammy: turning off swing suburban voters without any gains in nonwhite voter turnout.

But make no mistake: They’re playing with fire. Trump is highly vulnerable, but he has the ability to win a second term if the Democratic nominee appears as extreme as he is. Warren has a realistic chance of becoming the next president, but she also could jeopardize it all for the Democratic Party.

[blm]

64. Horsepoo.

[Tipperary]

70. Ditto.

Well said lol!

[Pepsidog]

66. I think you are right.

[Gothmog]

67. How long will Warren dodge on health care and taxes?

Link to tweet

None other than late-night host Stephen Colbert made it painfully clear that Warren is ducking. He asked twice about whether taxes will go up and practically begged her to level with voters. “I’ve listened to these answers a few times before," he said, "and I just want to make a parallel suggestion to you that you might defend the taxes, perhaps, you’re not mentioning in your sentence: ‘Isn’t Medicare for All like public school? There might be taxes for it, but you save money sending your kids to school, and do you want to live in a world where your kids aren’t educated? Do you want to live in a world where your fellow Americans are dying?’”

Let’s be clear: If Colbert and debate moderators can figure this out, her opponents in the primary and, more important, the Republicans in the general election will hit her again and again.

It is not simply a matter of the viability of her health-care plan. It goes to her core critique of the moderates: They are too timid and too scared to do the big things. Well, perhaps they have figured out what the big things cost and don’t see they are economically or politically viable.

Warren’s brand is truth-telling about the rich and powerful, but you simply cannot get the rich and big corporations to pay for all of it. The Medicare-for-all plan introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is presumably the basis for Warren’s idea — despite all her other plans, she has little specifics on health care. Sanders’s plan posits a number of funding sources and specifies a premium for families (“a typical family of four earning $50,000, after taking the standard deduction, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All — just $844 a year — saving that family over $4,400 a year. Because of the standard deduction, families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium”). Now, there are a lot of people who consider themselves middle-class who might have to pay more, but at least Sanders makes some effort to spell out the costs and the savings.

[Nitram]

68. I hope so. Seems a bit early to call it as confidently as you do.

[Starry Messenger]

69. I like her and Harris about equally--I'm just glad CA

is a Super Tuesday state this year, so it’s likely I’ll get to vote for one of them.

[disndat]

71. Too soon

E.Warrren's plans need closer analyzing.