CNN's Harry Enten: The electability difference between Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden

[highplainsdem]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/09/politics/warren-biden-electability-analysis/index.html

-snip-

One consistency in the data, however, is that Warren runs slightly weaker than Sanders and clearly weaker than Biden.

These new polls echo prior data that has shown that Warren's electability case is not anywhere near as strong as it is for Biden.

In CNN's October national poll, voters were asked whether or not they had a favorable or unfavorable view of the different Democrats. Among those who had an opinion of both Biden and Warren, Biden's net favorability (favorable - unfavorable) rating was 4 points higher than Warren's. Back in July, his net favorability was a very similar 5 points higher among those who had an opinion of both.

This gap in popularity lines up with the gap we're seeing in how they do against Trump.

The numbers look even worse for Warren among those who aren't Democrats or Democratic leaning independents, following Biden's argument that he appeals better to non traditionally Democratic voters. In our October national poll, Biden's net favorability among this group was 11 points higher than Warren's.

-snip-

Beyond the polling, past electoral results give us a good look at Warren's electability argument.

Her reelection margin to the Senate in 2018 was weak considering the partisan leaning of her state. She won by 24 points. The Democrats running for election to the House in Massachusetts (accounting for uncontested races) won by 36 points. In other words, Warren ran 12 points behind her fellow Massachusetts Democrats running for federal office in 2018. For comparison, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar did 13 points better than the Minnesota Democrats running for the House in 2018.

These results are backed by the fact that Warren's favorable ratings in deep blue Massachusetts regularly fall below 50%, while Klobuchar's have topped 60% in the swing state of Minnesota.

-snip-

There's also an argument to be made that a more moderate candidate like Biden or Klobuchar is more electable than a more liberal one. Warren would arguably be the most liberal Democratic presidential nominee of the modern era. (Note this is also true of Sanders, who runs worse than Biden, though not by as much as Warren.)

As I pointed out in July, there is a slew of evidence that more moderate candidates have done better than those closer to ideological poles in House elections over the last decade. Now, the difference isn't so great as to make Warren unelectable, and there are other factors at play in elections than ideology. The average gap once we control for other factors is, however, large enough to be consistent with the polling showing Biden running a few points better than Warren against Trump.

-snip-

Again, none of this data means Warren can't beat Trump. It just means that she continues to have a weaker case to make about electability than Biden at this point.

[Demsrule86]

1. I fear we will not be able to elect Warren in a general...and see no reason to try with polls like

this. I know her supporters believe once the voters get to know her, they will adore her...but I don't know if this will happen. I like Warren and would support her in a general but I don't think she should be our nominee. We must show Trump the door which means winning the rust belt and the recent polls I posted yesterday show Biden has a much better shot. K&R

[tonedevil]

2. I like Biden well enough...

and will certainly support him in the general if he secures the nomination. As things stand I am much more likely to vote for Warren or Harris in the primary. When the voting actully starts the wheat will be seperated from the chaff, perhaps after so many attempts this time Biden won't be chaff.

[Desert grandma]

4. I agree with you.

I like Warren too, but I do not think she can win a general election. I think she would have a hard time winning the rust belt states. Biden is our best hope in winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. He is a decent likeable person with a left of center political outlook. We will need a nominee who has the experience and stature to restore the US image in the world. The Orange Buffoon has already damaged our relationships abroad. Four more years of this moron could damage our democracy for generations. The ONLY criteria I care about in a nominee is WILL THEY BEAT the squatter in the White House? I will vote for whoever is the eventual nominee, but I hope we as a party do not blow this opportunity to get rid of trump by nominating a far left candidate who IMHO will not win the electoral college states we will need for victory in 2020.

[Mr.Bill]

12. The Image of the US to the world

will be restored before the sun sets on Joe Biden's inauguration day.

[thesquanderer]

19. You may be right, but I think it's too early to write Warren off.

There's a lot of campaign to go yet.

Warren is my current choice, but beating Trump is more important. So when my state's primaries roll around, if Warren is not polling strongly against Trump in the swing states, and one or more other candidates are, then I will switch my vote to one of those others.

Assuming Trump is still president.

[nini]

23. This country is craving statemanship and 'normal'

Whether some like it or not Biden brings that.

He and Harris have always been tied at the top for me and I have donated to both of them, but I know Biden is what the voters will gravitate to more because his is known and comes from much better times.

Yea.. it sucks we not going to get everything we want in one big swoop, but if we don't knock the block off the GOP this election we may never get another chance either.

[treestar]

3. IMO we are feminists but the independents

cannot be trusted to be objective. They don't even realize it. They come up with reasons why the woman is not "likeable" without even realizing they are coming up with those reasons to support not voting for a woman.

Hillary was clearly more than qualified while Dotard was clearly unqualified and unfit. Yet there was just enough misogyny in the not-DU world to sink her.

[jcgoldie]

7. Soooo... we shouldn't vote for a woman because we don't trust independents...

Well its a good thing we're all feminists!!! I mean cuz' otherwise we might come up with reasons to not vote for a woman without even realizing it...

[tonedevil]

11. LOL... /nt

[treestar]

15. We do want to win.

Si we have to account for those who are not DU. You’d rather lose on principle.

[MrsCoffee]

26. No we'd rather win on principle.

You'd rather just not even try.

[MarcA]

49. +1,000 n/t

[Demsrule86]

68. I rather try principle some other year....we only have one shot and principle will be cold

comfort if Trump wins four more years. We will see more caged babies, the ACA wont continue if we don't win, more war for sure...maybe Hillary, Obama and Biden locked up by Trump...and another SCOTUS judge too as Ginsberg won't hold on four more years. The Dreamers will be sent home to die too...God knows what other horrors await in another Trump term. And things will worsen for women, LGBTQand millions of other Americans. We need to nominate the MOST electable candidate. I would like to see a woman president in my lifetime...but I would trade that in a New York second to get rid of Trump...send him packing and save the Republic.

[treestar]

98. +1 This is the year to lose on principal and actually

believe we can win with an idealistic candidate? LOL. By all means, let's "try" to get middle of the road swing state voters to be very, very liberal. I'm sure they can be convinced within a few months.

[Demsrule86]

105. Well...of course they just know that if their super candidate runs all voters will immediately

fall for this preferred candidate, how could they not? They are such superior beings? Why this is the year we can take any candidate and put them over the top if we try hard enough.

[blm]

73. ✔️

[treestar]

97. Try to do what?

You try based on decisions, not just because. You look at the entire electorate, and realistically.

[brush]

104. That's part of it, but there's also the missteps on MFA's funding...

and the requirement for everyone to have it and not employer or private insurance.

[crazytown]

5. All these negative commentaries

after Warren set out her taxation plan for M4A. Passing strange.

The industry is more or less united against Ms. Warren. With just months before the first voting begins, it is unleashing a barrage of public attacks, donating money to her rivals and scrambling to counter her blistering narrative about Wall Street.

[highplainsdem]

6. LOL! Harry Enten is analyzing polls, which is what he always does.

[Thekaspervote]

38. I really don't see them as attacks. Voters want her to be straight forward with cost and

The inevitable taxes increases

[judeling]

8. Seems like more of an aruement for Klobuchar

then it does for Biden.

[highplainsdem]

9. Nope. Read the full analysis. But I do like Klobuchar, even though she hasn't done well in the

polls so far.

[judeling]

30. Yeah

Too bad for Amy she only has one Head to Head. Sure it's a Home state poll. But that sort of proves the point of over performance. While Biden over performs Warren in that swing state, Klobuchar does even better then Biden by 5%.

Klobuchar is the most dangerous candidate to both Biden and Warren. What she lacks right now are the Head to Heads to seal the electability part of her argument. With her moving into fifth in the first two stats she may just get them as the field narrows.

[Green Line]

10. She won her 2018 Senate reelection against a very weak Republican opponent

I don't believe that she can win the general and this election is way too important to take that chance.

[Perseus]

17. If you go by that, then here is some perspective from the past.

Joe Biden, a former Vice President of the United States, has run for the office of President of the United States twice: Joe Biden 1988 presidential campaign, 2008. ... and now Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign.

If Biden has failed to win the presidency two times before, why do you think he can do better now? Your perspective on Warren that she won against a weak opponent has no merit, she still won, but Biden has not won in two tries, why is this his best chance?

If you go by historic results, which you seem to be, then Warren has won, Biden has not, the odds in your analysis would go against Biden, don't you think?

[Green Line]

20. Pretty sure he won his senate seat a few times

And he wasn’t VP for 8 years when he ran in 88 and 08

[highplainsdem]

21. Apples to oranges. Biden had no trouble at all winning re-election to the Senate, quite a few times

As for his earlier presidential runs -- he was much less well known then. He never polled well then.

This time he's been the front-runner for nearly a year, according to RCP, since they started polling last December.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

[Perseus]

33. Yes, and Warren had no trouble winning her Senate sit the first time she run.

The original comment was about "winning the presidency", one that Biden has already tried twice unsuccessfully, and the poster diminishing Warren's win in the Senate as "she run against a weak opponent", so apples to oranges?

[INdemo]

34. The Mid-terms should tell you that voters are not afraid to elect progressives

if they were AOC would still be tending bar.
Voters don't want to nominate someone just because the Democratic leadership believes its that candidates turn. The DNC (Debbie Wasserman Shultz) pushed for that in 2018 and we know what happen there.
Any of the Democratic slate could win this nomination but the younger voters will not help nominate Joe Biden.
Its time for Joe "to pass the Torch".
As for Warren, well no one thought she would ever win facing an incumbent but she won her Senate seat doing just that.
Even though she has explained how she will pay for her Medicare for All no one,especially those that are supporting another candidate,will take the time to read about her plan in detail.

[Thekaspervote]

40. polls do not indicate she can win. Polling with AAvoters and in the rust belt are not good for EW

This is just one of many polls out the past 10 days. This NYT/sienna poll has some really eye popping numbers

(Snip)These potentially persuadable voters are divided on major issues like single-payer health care, immigration and taxes. But they are fairly clear about what they would like from a Democrat. They prefer, by 82% to 11%, one who promises to find common ground over one who promises to fight for a progressive agenda; and they prefer a moderate over a liberal, 75% to 19%.

They support Biden over the president, 38% to 27%, but prefer the president to Warren, 37% to 20%. Sanders is in between, with the president leading him, 34% to 32%. This group voted for Trump by a smaller margin in 2016, 37% to 30%, with the rest casting ballots for minor candidates.

More at the link
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287336368#post2

[INdemo]

90. Where did you get those numbers, not just another DU post but an actual source

I think those number are BS. Give us a real news source

[Demsrule86]

72. AOC was elected in New York...she took a Democratic seat...good for her but it was 40 moderates

that gave us the house...so the midterms tell me that for national and statewide elections...you need a moderate candidate. AOC won't ever win in WI, MI or PA no matter how talented she is unless we prepare the electorate for a progessive by winning hearts and minds.We haven't done that.

[judeling]

35. She has

Won all three of her races by around the same. But more important is she has carried every CD every time, including the home CD of her first opponent. In the second race she won by a similar margin while Pawlenty was winning reelection.

She is touting breath and more importantly Down Ballot. Is there a down ballot candidate that would have to run away from her or worry about covering some gaff?

[MarcA]

51. Same tired old line.

Wasn't true when it started and not true now.

[pat_k]

13. Wrong "case"

Standing strong for moral principles with bold ideas has more appeal than any wishy washy, let's not demand what we think is right bullshit group think that pervades in Washington.

Bill Clinton said himself

"When people are insecure, they'd rather have somebody who is strong and wrong than someone who's weak and right."

The only way to beat Trump's strong and wrong is to match it with bold strength, standing steadfastly for our REAL principles. You know, those principles that are expressed in the Democratic platform, that only the so-called "extremist" dems have the guts to actually fight for.

The "center" has moved so far to the right, people don't recognize the REAL middle any more.

If we don't draw some REAL lines in the sand and steadfastly stand up for what we believe in, the nation will just keep being pulled in the direction of the right-wingnuts who DO draw firm lines and refuse to waver, no matter how many people say "will never happe." (Like all the people who were sure abortion would never be banned -- that the extremists would never really make any headway. And now we have states where is it almost impossible for women who have limited resources to terminate unwanted pregnancy... and the basic right is seriously under threat nationally.)

[highplainsdem]

22. You've expressed your individual opinion, and you're entitled to it. Enten is analyzing the

aggregate opinions from polls, to get a better sense of what the wider electorate thinks.

[pat_k]

24. What they "think" is based on the persistent "drumbeat"...

... that standing up for what we actually believe in is a "loser."

It is a self-fulfilling drumbeat.

If you don't fight, you are guaranteed to lose.

Given how far we've allowed this nation to fall following the "must be moderate to win" strategy, don't you think its time for a new drumbeat? One based in hope and bold dedication to our REAL principles?

[blm]

45. ✔️

[Drunken Irishman]

48. I agree with you - it's not just about being a moderate.

I don't think it's just Warren's policies that have hurt her. They certainly do make for a larger contrast, and hold the potential of being a negative, but good politicians can sell their policy. I am not sure Warren has the capability of selling her ideology to the voters we need to win - namely people in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. Concerns of that are valid because frankly, I don't care how popular she is in California or Massachusetts. I care how popular she is in the states we absolutely need to carry to win.

In the two most recent Wisconsin polls, Warren trailed Trump by two and led him by one. These polls were done within a week of each other. That works out, if you average the two polls, to a Trump lead. Yes, a very narrow lead but a lead nonetheless. That's a concern because the Democrats NEED Wisconsin. The nominee can win every state Hillary won, including Michigan and Pennsylvania, and they'll still lose the election without winning Wisconsin or flipping another state Trump won in 2016.

Warren has to prove she can have that breakthrough. I think she's been able to with Democratic voters but that has yet to materialize with overall voters.

[pat_k]

114. Some thoughts on approach in another thread

At this point, I favor Warren for the kind of meaningful change she advocates, but am very uncomfortable with the language of demonetization of the 1%. I think that's a problem that will "turn off" voters that would otherwise be inspired by the substance.

What I would like to see:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=341393

[treestar]

100. fight what?

why does just saying that do anything for anyone?

it is not a battle. It is about getting along together, not fighting.

[pat_k]

113. Fight -- work -- whatever you want to call it.

Inspire and re-engage "we the people" in working to shape OUR government by "going big."

And it is a fight -- against economic injustice, mass incarceration, horrific healthcare system, on and on....

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287341288#post111

[MarcA]

54. Left Right false dichotomy pushed by corporate centrists. n/t

[treestar]

99. How is someone weak and right?

I'm not sure what he means, but boldness of statement and certainty of manner are characteristic of any candidate. Biden surely has that too.

[pat_k]

111. "Talking the talk" without ...

... "walking the walk."

It's being "right" with talk of values, but "weak" in refusing to stand strong for the major changes we must achieve to manifest those values -- universal healthcare, true economic fairness, end mass incarceration.... on and on.

Weak and right is declaring where we need to go, but then crushing hope by telling the electorate we must take the "incremental" approach of advocating for some minor change that completely fails to engage people. The disconnect between bold talk and calls for wimpy action speaks volumes to the electorate. We keep losing ground because too many of "we the people" haven't been buying.

Weak is telling people it's just not "practical" to demand big things, when the truth is that big things don't ever happen unless you demand and take up the fight for them. Those "big things" may not be achieved today, or tomorrow, but as you inspire people with demands for bold action that matches the bold talk, momentum builds. Waking people up to the possibility of bringing about change that truly makes a difference is the way you build the political will to make those things happen.

Stubbornly sticking with a moderate, incremental approach that has so clearly failed out of fear that "going big" won't work is the insanity of doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

Preemptive surrender will always be seen as weak because it is. It's like telling a dozen hungry people they can only fight to get a piece of bread to share because some scary "they" surely won't let them have more. Sure, maybe a 12th of a piece of bread is better than no bread, but if that's where they start, they'll still starve. And they'll probably be too damn tired to take up that "fight." I would bet they would to fight a lot harder for a dozen loaves. Maybe it won't work, but at least they go down fighting. That's moral strength.

Why the "moderate" approach has failed is that modest goals completely fail to inspire and build the sort of political will we need to make things happen. Go for the big shit. Inspire. Re-connect people to their government by making it clear it isn't one person who will make these things a reality, but all of us -- and get us engaged in the fight for things that are really worthwhile.

For far too long, the wins our so-called leaders have achieved have primarily been achieved because people are voting against the big -- and utterly destructive -- things the Republicans are going for. They aren't voting for the wimpy and moderate and incremental things we tell them we are working to achieve. They are voting against the destructive vision the Republicans are standing strong for (and winning, because, as Clinton pointed out, when people are insecure, strong and wrong beats weak and right).

[Gothmog]

110. Biden is leading in latest Q poll in NH due to electability

Link to tweet

Nearly one-third (32 percent) of New Hampshire likely Democratic primary voters say the most important candidate quality in deciding who to vote for is "someone who can win the general election," followed by "honesty" at 24 percent, "someone who cares about people like you" at 18 percent, "good leadership skills" at 14 percent, and only 7 percent saying "experience in public office."

Perceived electability is helping Biden, as he leads the primary with 31 percent of the vote among those who say that electability is the most important candidate quality to them. Warren gets 20 percent of these "electability" voters, while Buttigieg receives 19 percent, and Sanders gets 6 percent.

[pat_k]

112. Only "moderates" are electable is so misguided it makes me scream.

Some thoughts on that in response to a question about what "weak and right" means.

The dem modus operandi of incremental moderation fails to inspire or build political will. It is "weak and right" -- which is far too often being beaten by autocratic "strong and wrong."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=346200

[Gothmog]

115. Medicare for All a Vote Loser in 2018 U.S. House Elections

I really like Larry Sabato and agree with this study http://crystalball.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/medicare-for-all-a-vote-loser-in-2018-u-s-house-elections/

“Medicare for All” has emerged as a key issue in the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination campaign. Two of the leading candidates, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), have made Medicare for All a central issue in their campaigns. Warren’s and Sanders’ proposals would abolish private health insurance in the U.S. within a few years and move all Americans into a government health plan based on the current Medicare program but with no copayments or deductibles.

Several Democratic candidates, including former Vice President Joe Biden, who has led in most national polls, have been highly critical of this idea. These candidates, along with a number of health policy experts and pundits, have attacked Sanders’ and Warren’s Medicare for All proposal as prohibitively expensive and politically unrealistic. They have also argued that embracing Medicare for All would alienate many independents and moderate Democrats and risk costing Democrats the electoral votes of several key swing states.....

Conclusions
An analysis of the impact of Medicare for All on the 2018 House elections indicates that Democratic challengers and open seat candidates in competitive districts who endorsed a version of Medicare for All similar to that proposed by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren did significantly worse than those who did not. This negative effect, close to five points of margin after controlling for a variety of other factors, was clearly large enough to affect the outcomes of some House contests.

It is possible that the estimated effect of Medicare for All was a byproduct of other differences between supporters and non-supporters. For example, supporters might have taken more liberal positions on a variety of other issues as well as Medicare for All. Even if that is the case, however, these findings are not encouraging to supporters of Medicare for All. They indicate that candidates in competitive races who take positions to the left of the median voter could get punished at the polls. Democratic presidential candidates would do well to take heed of these results, particularly as the eventual nominee determines what he or she wishes to emphasize in the general election.

[Perseus]

14. Here is my opinion about these type of "news"

Every time I find an article in DU that is negative to Warren or Sanders, I don't even have to scroll down to know it comes from a Biden supporter.

DISCLAIMER: I WILL vote for Biden if he becomes the nominee. Do I want him to be the nominee? That is another story, but he will have my full support and I will do anything in my power for him to be our next president if he wins the Democratic nomination.

I don't know if the Biden crowd is having some doubts about Biden getting the nomination, I rarely find Warren supporters throwing in articles that are anti-Biden, yes we see one once in a while, so there seems to be some insecurity somewhere.

I have been scolded many times here at DU for giving my opinion about these things, all of them when I presented my opinion about Biden, but if I am to be scolded for having an opposite opinion about Biden than its supporters have, and if I am to be scolded for "supporting right wing opinions", which I have never done but that has been the accusation, then I believe the same should apply for those who constantly post negative articles about Warren and Sanders, who seem to be the only targets from the Biden crowed.

I have been told "no negative comments about our candidates, we must support them all", this coming from a Biden supporter, but I don't see the same happening when the negativity is about Warren and Sanders, more against Warren as she seems to be going upwards on the polls.

I agree, lets support all our candidates equally, lets analyze well what they are offering, which is way much better than anything any republican could offer.

[highplainsdem]

18. Yes, and the attacks on Biden come mostly from Warren and Sanders supporters.

And btw, this article is not an attack.

It's an analysis of polling by an expert at CNN.

[Skya Rhen]

25. From time to time, the truth hurts.

[Perseus]

31. I want the truth, I want it about everyone

And I am OK with people having opposite opinions to mine, but that is not what I have seen from the Biden crowd.

DISCLAIMER: I do like Biden, I like a lot of what he has done during his political career, there is a lot I don't like as well, but the good outweighs the bad, and I am not blind about the good and bad about the other candidates, but to tell me "the truth hurts sometimes", yes it seems to hurt a lot to die-hard Biden supporters, and that is what I have been talking about. Biden supporters will "report" anyone who disagrees with them while sending negative articles about the other candidates, we have decide that we either respect all candidates or all candidates are fair game, that we respect everyone opinions even if the differ from ours, and stop reporting and complaining about them.

[highplainsdem]

36. What you think you see from "the Biden crowd" is what Biden supporters see from Warren and Sanders

supporters...including people posting as Undecided who are still obviously in favor of Warren and/or Sanders and who obviously want Biden out of the race.

And that behavior includes an over-willingness to alert on lots of perfectly innocuous posts just because they don't like the opinion expressed.

[Thekaspervote]

41. This!!

I for one, do NOT post negatives. And I see the Biden supporters here doing the same. Posting facts backed by links. We don’t say EW should drop out, or denigrate her as I have seen here by those supporting her saying the front runner should drop out , pass the torch....

EW did take off in the polls for a while and I can speculate but won’t as to why. As mentioned above sometimes the truth hurts.

[Eliot Rosewater]

101. I am just now starting to wonder how heavy will the KGB/putin /GOP hand be on our

primaries?

Putin has hacked our system, with the help of the GOP and our current govt, will they try and sway our primaries so we nominate someone who cant win?

I am not saying that is Liz, I like her. I fear the M4All idea, while one that I actually support, is too much change too soon. MAYBE , maybe not...

But I also saw a report on how people under 40 WANT that kind of change and people over 40 dont.

HOW MUCH impact will the KGB (sorry, I REFUSE to use the acronym Putin created to misdirect our attention, they are still the KGB) have on our primary?

[blm]

46. Some folks search daily for every anti-Warren tidbit they can find.

I couldn’t even imagine posting like that against Biden or the others.....and doing it several times a day???? For months???? Sheesh. Kind of evil. And very anti-Dem.

[Cha]

58. Talk about "jeeze"! Someone is NOT "kind of evil and very anti-Dem" for

posting cnn's Harry Enten's electability analysis between these two candidates.

CNN's Harry Enten: The electability difference between Elizabeth Warrer and Joe Biden

Your personal attacks are way over the line. And, just because you don't personally post anything negative on Joe Biden doesn't mean there aren't many here who do.. much worse than analyzing electability data.

[blm]

61. The reply was to Perseus' overall observation of this forum and not

specific to the Enten article. Every time an anti-Warren piece is posted, he said he usually knows before he reads the names of who posted it.

So, let’s be real. Start counting the number of anti-Warren posts that pop up here daily from the same posters.

When I noticed it being done to Biden I spoke against it. Yet you want to see me as the bad guy for calling out the constant stream of anti-Warren postings.

You don’t allow for me what you allow for yourself.

Goodnight zidzi.

[Cha]

62. Still Nothing "kind of evil and very anti-Dem".. you're

the one who needs to "get real".

Your personal attacks are what you accuse her of.

ETA.. this is the Primaries.

[blm]

64. The constant anti-Warren postings ARE kind of evil

as they are being crafted with hopes to do lasting damage to Warren’s campaign. And those constant attacks on Warren are VERY anti-Dem, when you consider that she may be the eventual nominee.

[highplainsdem]

66. That's garbage. And btw, Biden's been the frontrunner for nearly a year, with it looking

most likely that he'll be the eventual nominee, and I don't recall seeing you constantly lecturing people posting attacks on Biden.

So stop trying to justify your sniping at Biden supporters by suggesting they're "kind of evil."

That's simply crazy.

[blm]

71. The constant attack posts ARE kind of evil. You want her campaign damaged.

And I defended Biden plenty from overthetop attacks from some here. Far more times than you cared to notice, apparently.

Now your posts against Warren and your posts supporting Biden dominate the forum. Good. For. You. But, I will keep countering the constant attacks on Warren and I will follow through on my personal commitment to not attack Biden or other Dem candidates who may become our nominee.

Because it is the constant attack posts that are the real garbage here.

[highplainsdem]

82. Oh, dear God. This is NOT an attack post! This is analysis of polls. I post a lot of

polls. Those aren't attack posts, either.

Nor is it an attack post to point out when Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi say anything against Medicare For All.

You know what ARE attack posts?

The posts suggesting Biden suffers from cognitive decline -- and there have been a LOT of them here. You say you're concerned about our eventual nominee possibly having a campaign damaged by attacks. I really don't recall your weighing in to stop those threads.

You know what else were attack posts? All the threads criticizing Biden for hugging or touching people. I don't recall your objecting to those.

I post very little about Warren.

I could post a LOT more about her, news stories and opinion pieces you probably wouldn't like, if I wanted to. There's a lot out there.

Most of what I've said about Warren has been about Medicare For All, because I think it's a losing issue.

I can recall lots of discussions here about how it's perfectly fine to discuss policies.

But you apparently don't think I have a right to do that.

Your attitude is the sort of thing I've referred to here before when I've mentioned that some Warren supporters act as if anything that isn't praise of her is lese majeste.

Any and all criticisms of Biden are fine, but God forbid anyone mention Warren unless it's to praise her.

[emmaverybo]

92. As I see it, many Biden attacks have been personal, smears. Warren's policies have been challenged.

Her explanations or lack of information have been taken to task. But DUers steer clear of impugning her character, her fitness for office.
Now I see your post as simply offering a poll analysis. Analysis can be informed, credible, authoritative or biased, not factually grounded, suspect.
You didn’t present this bit of analysis as the word on high.

Considerable praise has been given Elizabeth Warren here and elsewhere and she is not afraid to tout herself. But that is my own aside, nothing to do with what you put forth.

[Cha]

70. It's the Primaries! There have been NO "kinda of evil and anti-Dem"

OPs here.. "get real"! Not everything is glowing praise about EW.. you're Not shutting down discussions with your Way Out of Bounds personal attacks.

That's a horrendous personal insult at a loyal Democrat who has provided us with tons of information over the years.

[highplainsdem]

63. LOL! If you don't like my posts, blm, you don't need to follow me around the board lecturing me.

And you really have crossed a line suggesting that what I post is "kind of evil" and "very anti-Dem."

I have no idea what you can imagine, but I haven't noticed you constantly lecturing people who attack Biden.

And FWIW, I'd've never thought anyone here could post anything as silly as your "kind of evil and very anti-Dem" accusation.

Go lecture someone else.

Actually, do ALL of us a favor, and stop lecturing people, period.

[blm]

67. I counter anti-Warren posts when posted by you or others.

On this thread I concurred with Perseus’s observation.

[highplainsdem]

69. This thread is about poll analysis. You're posting personal attacks, and really

crazy ones, on Biden supporters.

You're taking all of this waaaaaay too seriously when you suggest that Biden supporters are "kind of evil."

[blm]

84. I don't say Biden supporters are evil. The constant, daily attack posts

directed at Warren are kind of evil because they are posted with the purpose of committing lasting damage to her campaign.

Most of the Biden supporters here don’t even consider posting daily attacks on other Dem candidates.

Some do. You can count them all on one hand.

Most of the Warren supporters here don’t even consider posting daily attacks on other Dem candidates.

Some do. You can count them all on one hand.

[highplainsdem]

88. I haven't seen anyone here posting "constant, daily attack posts directed at Warren."

OTOH, there have been plenty of times when I've seen daily attack posts on Biden.

I really do NOT understand why you think anything that anyone says here could have any serious effect on a candidate's campaign, let alone cause "lasting damage."

And I don't think anyone is posting here for the purpose of causing such damage.

If DU posts could cause serious damage to a candidate's campaign, Biden's would never have started at all, since the attacks on him here started even before he made his run official.

What you see here, more than anything, is people talking about what well known pundits or journalists or politicians or pollsters have said, which is already widely publicized elsewhere.

Once in a great while someone here will have some personal info to contribute, but that's rare. Almost always it's just public information and opinions about it.

Which are NOT evil.

[blm]

89. The intent to spread negativity IS kind of evil.

[highplainsdem]

91. I don't think there IS an "intent to spread negativity." Not here.

And definitely not from me or any Biden supporters I know.

Now if you want to look at a clear intent to spread negativity, you can find examples like the anti-endorsement of Biden in The Nation, which unfortunately was posted here, though it had its widest impact through being published on their website with the link passed around in social media.

The intent of that anti-endorsement was to do as much damage to Biden's campaign as possible (though he's the front-runner) and by doing so to help Sanders and Warren.

I didn't see you post anything about that, and while I'm glad you weren't in there agreeing with that attack on Biden, you should have been pointing out the clear intent of the editorial, since you're so concerned.

That was a very deliberate attempt to damage a Democratic candidate's campaign.

It's hard to get more deliberate -- or to do anything more damaging to the party -- than an anti-endorsement of the front-runner. That was the editorial equivalent of kneecapping the person on your team who's ahead in the race, just because you'd rather see a slower runner, one you like more, win instead.

[emmaverybo]

94. "Kind of evil" and "anti-Dem" comment was waaaaaay out of bounds. You could not have been

serious. But we can all make an ill-considered remark. Heat of the moment, probably.

[Demsrule86]

74. Are you serious? Have you seen the Biden attack posts.

[MarcA]

52. IOKIYAJBS. n/t

[Cha]

16. And, one of the big reasons I like Biden he can win..

against trump.. plus I like him for the job

[Thekaspervote]

42. Amen to that Cha.. his numbers are improving for a reason!!

[BlueTsunami2018]

27. The polls in the "Blue Wall" states say it all for me.

Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin....Joe takes them all. We’re going to get New York, California and Illinois no matter who we put up but Joe has the best chance to take back those states Тяцмр narrowly “won”.

We can’t mess around here.

[Thekaspervote]

43. Indeed and if Biden is the nominee TX, FL and AZ all come into play. Not so with EW or sanders

[Demsrule86]

77. I agree.

[evertonfc]

28. She

won't win Florida. Biden will. Match over early

[NNadir]

29. Of course, extreme right wingers are "electable," aren't they? We have a Nazi in the White House...

...afterall.

In 2015, what were the soothsayers at CNN saying about the "electability" of the senile Nazi in question?

Should we therefore assume that Nazism is popular with the American people?

CNN of course, did everything in its power to popularize the "unelectable" moron that is now in the White House.

I don't think they understand a damned thing in the media and their soothsaying is no better than that done by Tarot card readers.

[blm]

85. ✔️✔️

[redstateblues]

32. According to MSNBC Biden's campaign has already collapsed

As he continues to lead most polls

[highplainsdem]

37. LOL! Josh Barro had a funny tweet about that the other day, about how some people have

practically "erased" Joe Biden. "Look, he's right there!" Barro wrote. "Leading the polls!"

Just found that tweet again:

Link to tweet

[YOHABLO]

39. Corporate America wants Joe Biden, and that's what we'll get.

Oh my, did I just say that?

[vsrazdem]

44. Yes, that's about it. He's been being shoved down our throat since before he announced.

[redstateblues]

59. Yeah right. That why he is leading in the polls

[vsrazdem]

60. That doesn't make it any less true.

[redstateblues]

65. Nobody is shoving Biden down your throat

If anything is being shoved down our throats it’s that Biden is done-all the while he is leading the polls. I’m sure it’s frustrating when your candidate is in third place in most polls and really has an extremely narrow path to win the nomination.

[vsrazdem]

83. This has nothing to do with who I support. The MSM ha been pushing Biden since before he even

announced.

[redstateblues]

108. The MSM (Mathews, Chris Hayes, Joy Reid, Rachel Maddox et al)have been trashing since he

Announced

[Cha]

57. THE PEOPLE WANT JOE BIDEN, YOHABLO.. he's the one who polls the

BEST Against the fucking Psycho in the WH.

[YOHABLO]

75. Not my people.

[Cha]

78. THE PEOPLE who have Joe Biden in the Lead NOW.

[YOHABLO]

81. Oh so they're ganging up on me are they. Whatever.

[Peacetrain]

76. +++++++++1000

[Cha]

79. Mahalo, Peacetrain!

[Peacetrain]

80. Hey Cha!!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. K&R

[TheFarseer]

50. If the media

Lets Republicans set the narrative Warren is going to take away your money and give it to homeless illegal immigrants, we will definitely lose. If they talk about reality, that we’re going to finally make Bezos and Sheldon Adelson pay taxes and you get health care, we’ll be golden. Of course sadly I think the first narrative is more likely to dominate.

[MarcA]

55. +1,000 n/t

[LakeArenal]

53. Joe is the most qualified nationally and globally

That’s why he’s more electable. That’s why he is going to win.

[oasis]

56. Biden's the One. It's always been the case from the day he entered.

The Harry Enten confirmation is welcome.

[dixiechiken1]

86. I agree with Rachel Maddow...

She said to vote the primaries with your heart and the general with your head. That is exactly what I intend to do.

I will vote in the primary for the candidate that excites me; the candidate that I feel has a vision for a future that I would like to see. At this point, that candidate is Warren. That might very well change as the field narrows and we get to see the candidates actually debate each other.

However, once our Democratic nominee is chosen, I will crawl over broken glass to vote for that person. That is what every Democrat needs to do in order for us to take our country back. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. Susan Sarandon and her ilk can SUCK IT. We cannot afford the petulance of anyone taking their ball - their vote - and going home. Not this time.

[blm]

87. ✔️✔️✔️

[PhoenixDem]

93. EW and especially BS are unelectable in a GE n/t

[dixiechiken1]

95. DJT was supposed to be unelectable, too...

Until he was elected.

[emmaverybo]

96. Neither is as qualified as Biden. Neither has any FP experience or knowledge. An older

statesman yeah. But two old newbies?

[Champion Jack]

102. Joe's run a couple times before ...right?

Just wondering how many primaries did he win then?

[highplainsdem]

103. Those really aren't relevant, because he wasn't leading in the polls for nearly a year then.

[Champion Jack]

106. It would seem that the primaries

are the ultimate poll

[Gothmog]

107. Joe Biden is the most electable candidate that the Democratic Party has available

[Gothmog]

109. Joe Biden is the most electable candidate that the Democratic Party has available

Link to tweet