Why isn't Warren polling better? Suffolk/Globe asked that in N.H.

[crazytown]

Here’s the answers given by respondents -



Overall results as already posted at DU

Biden 20%
Buttigieg 12%
Sanders 12%
Warren 8%
Harris 6%
Booker 3%
O'Rourke 3%
Delaney 1%
Gabbard 1%
Klobuchar 1%
Yang 1%

EDIT: Elizabeth knows how to win over a crowd.
I posted this report earlier on DU about her SEIU:CAP appearance.

By near the end of the event, many attendees seemed a bit disappointed. Speakers like O'Rourke sounded good but lacked specifics. Others like Klobuchar who gave detailed responses about how she'd help labor didn't seem to have the energy necessary to take on President Trump.

Then Warren closed the day out. Seats began filling back up. Members of the press took their headphones off. If you had never looked at the polls, the energy in the room made you think Warren was about to accept her party's nomination for president.

"Now, let's be blunt. People who have power do not give it up easily. There are a lot corporate CEOs and big shareholders who have the vapors [about my plans]. To which my answer is: 'Too bad,'" Warren said as applause erupted.

Warren outlined policies she said would help restore union membership and raise wages, like restructuring the Department of Labor and allowing states to withhold union dues from Medicaid funds for home healthcare workers.

(snip) One woman, who voted for Sanders in the 2016 primary and works for the Service Employees Union in Minnesota (said) earlier in the day that she wasn't sure someone like Warren had the charisma to take back the White House. As she left the venue, she had done a 180.

"I still have goosebumps," she said, right before taking out a cigarette.

[JaneQPublic]

1. Translation of "She can't beat Trump"

"She's a woman."

[crazytown]

4. Well there are people in DU who say:

Only Joe Biden can beat Trump. He wins PA, MI & WI. Game over. And BTW, your candidate 1000% certain to lose.

[JaneQPublic]

8. Everyone has a different formula for calculating electability.

Personal preference is usually a main factor. And very often the candidate chosen as "most electable" turns out not to be (e.g., Kerry, Mondale, etc.)

I love Uncle Joe, but I'm not convinced he is the ONLY Dem candidate who could win PA, MI, & WI.

The only answer is to sit tight and let the primary process do its job.

[Drunken Irishman]

11. Kerry was the most electable...

No Democrat was electable against Reagan in 1984. It wasn't going to happen. Maybe someone doesn't lose in near the landslide but it's impossible to see a Democrat winning that election with the dynamics at play.

As for 2004, Kerry turned out to be the best candidate equipped to beat Bush. Bush was just a semi-popular war-time president in an election year where the economy was rebounding fairly strongly. I don't know any Democrat who ran in 2004, outside Kerry, who would've done as well as he did nationally.

[JaneQPublic]

17. We'll never know for sure, will we?

Not to relitigate 2004, but Kerry wasn't equipped to handle the Swift-Boaters. And as a Deaniac, I still think there was someone who was more electable.

By the way, the fact that Kerry was not elected means he was not electable.

After the election, losing candidates are not more or less electable than others; either they are or they're not, and losing means they're not.

[Drunken Irishman]

18. I mean, your last point just proves mine...

If they're not capable of winning the primary, why should anyone expect they would be capable of winning the general? Their inability to win the primary pretty much solidifies the point they're not as electable...

[JaneQPublic]

19. Being electable is like being pregnant.

Either you are or you aren't. If you aren't elected, then you aren't electable.

In the end Kerry was not one whit more electable than Dean.

Discussion of electability for past elections is just a parlor game of what-ifs. For future elections, it's mere speculation and conventional wisdom. The only accurate determiner of electability is an election. In the end, if more people (and Electoral College electors) vote for a candidate -- even one once deemed unelectable, like Trump -- then he/she will win.

[Drunken Irishman]

31. Not really.

Kerry won. Dean didn't. It only reasons a candidate who struggles to even do marginally well in a primary is probably not going to be able to do well in a general...or why have the primary process to begin with?

Ultimately the point here is that the Democrars nominated someone who wasn't electable...as opposed to who else? Is the argument that the Democrats couldn't win regardless of who they nominated? Maybe but then that would be the point. However, which Democrat that lost to Kerry would have done better?

[marylandblue]

25. "Electable" is a proxy for "moderate white male insider VP, Senator, or Governor."

But since that's a such a mouthful and not to mention racist, sexist, and elitist, they just say "electable." It's irrelevant whether the voters want what the "electable" candidate is selling, which is why "electable" candidate sometimes lose and "unelectable" candidates sometimes win.

I usually put "electable" in quotes because the whole concept is trash. Instead of asking what the voters want, it tells the voters "you want this." Which seems to hoodwink frightened primary voters, but not general election voters.

[Drunken Irishman]

30. lol

[Jake Stern]

27. "If they're not capable of winning the primary, why should anyone expect they would be capable of

winning the general?"

Joe Lieberman and Lisa Murkowski did.

[JaneQPublic]

32. +1000. (NT)

[Drunken Irishman]

37. There's a huge difference between winning one primary and 50+...

That's a false equivalence. Those candidates lost one primary - we're talking in the context of an entire party's primary that plays out in 50 states and other additional territories.

Howard Dean won one primary, Vermont's, that was binding, in 2004 - the only other candidate to win more than one binding primary was John Edwards, who won two (his home state and South Carolina). John Kerry won 51 additional contests. That's a strong enough sample size to tell me he was the best candidate the Democrats could have put up against Bush - and he was.

[at140]

2. Warren can't beat Trump but Buttigieg can? LOL

Yes I needed that hearty laugh!!

[murielm99]

10. I'm not going to tear her down.

I will listen to what she has to say and be respectful of her.

[at140]

12. Good thinking...nt

[Funtatlaguy]

3. So what does Warren do to try to change this narrative?

I think she needs to at least finish third in NH to remain viable.

[ancianita]

5. It's probably more like "what can voters do to change their narrative." This isn't about her.

She's great. It's not about her trustworthiness.

It's about voter trust in her to be a good commander-in-chief, decide a good cabinet, circle of advisors, foreign policy.

In those areas she's an unknown.

The country just isn't the mood to find out.

[delisen]

6. That is far away. Wonder what she might do now

[crazytown]

7. She is already turning things around

Have a look at this-

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128799210

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. A lot will change in the next 60 days.

All we have right now is a name recognition horse race.

[backtoblue]

13. I think some might be reluctant to get behind her (yet)

because of perceived electability. Trump is so freaking awful that people just want him gone. He's been attacking Warren for years and she didn't have a stellar response to him then. She had taken the high road when alot of people wanted to see pie on his face. I can imagine some folks thought she was too weak to take him one on one.

Here are two bright sides:

1) Warren is coming across as more passionate now and she will be given back those strength points in my opinion after the primary debates.

2) Most Bernie supporters like her. I think she will be their second choice for those who might stray away from him.

[crazytown]

14. The truth is Trump would lose to most of the Dem candidates

It’s not a big ask. He had the narrowest of victories last time. Sanders would have the most difficulties if for no other reason than his insane decision to support voting rights for even the worst incarcerated felons.

If you remember Willie Horton, you know what I mean.

[backtoblue]

15. Completely agree

We'll see if she can get her message out effectively and sway some votes. She's got mine.

[Demsrule86]

21. That is not true. Beating Trump will be difficult...he is going for an electoral college win...the

other candidates are going for a normal election and win...they will lose. Biden sees the truth.

[crazytown]

22. It was a wafer thin election

And all the polls show he has gone backwards since then. The argument you could be making on behalf of Joe Biden is that he is the best placed (by far) to deliver the sort of thumping victory that will humiliate the GOP, throw them out of the Senate, and put an end to Trumpism for good.

That’s the sort of reasoning I could get behind very easily. The polls show Texas May be in play with Joe as the nominee. That’s the first time I can remember any Dem presidential candidate leading in a poll of Texas ever.

[Demsrule86]

24. It could be wafer thin again. Trump has never been above 50% and yet he squats in the White House.

Maybe he should pick Castro as VP...great guy.

[thesquanderer]

16. About SEIU:CAP

The other speakers besides Warren were: Harris, Klobuchar, O'Rourke, Castro, Hickenlooper. Nice (and not surprising) to hear she did so well.

[Gothmog]

20. There is some good news for Warren in this polling

Link to tweet

[crazytown]

23. Second place!

Not too shabby at all

[Kurt V.]

26. She's missing a key element. .. a penis.

[mvd]

28. Right now I am torn between Sanders and Warren

Sanders has great policies though there are a couple things I disagree with him on - allowing all felons to vote and sometimes gun control. He also could be a little more open to compromise. Yes, start with Medicare for All, but if you can't get it passed now there are other good plans to try.

Warren's policies are also very good. I worry a little about how well she will connect with lesser informed voters - but like with Bernie, the strengths definitely outweigh the weaknesses.

[crazytown]

29. Let me quote you something from a union delegate who saw Warren at Las Vegas

One woman, who voted for Sanders in the 2016 primary and works for the Service Employees Union in Minnesota (said) earlier in the day that she wasn't sure someone like Warren had the charisma to take back the White House. As she left the venue, she had done a 180.

"I still have goosebumps," she said, right before taking out a cigarette.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128799210

If you would like to see for yourself, it’s here (the audio is poor but it’s great.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128797240

[mvd]

33. Thanks crazytown. I appreciate the links

As an undecided, it is good for me to look into things like this.

[crazytown]

34. It's a little like love I guess

It finds you

[crazytown]

35. Ii's a little like love I guess

You look but it finds you

[madville]

36. Massachusetts politicians haven't done well since JFK

Dukakis, Kerry, Romney, and now possibly Warren. The first three all had sub-par likability/favorbility numbers relative to their opponents and lost.