IA-Selzer: Warren 22, Biden 20, Sanders 11, Buttigieg 9, Harris 6

[redjohn]

Great for Warren. Bad for Sanders. Sanders really needs to win/come close in Iowa, if he doesn't win Iowa or New Hampshire it's tough seeing a road forward. Obviously, Harris is pretty much irrelevant at this point.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Also, I guess we can safely retire the talking point of Saint Bernie being The Most Popular Politician in America.

[Landslide Lyndon]

She underperformed Clinton last year, I mean she was the only incumbent democratic senator to do so (with Menendez). She is toxic with white non college voters, and would underperform in wealthy suburbs, nominating her would be a gift to Trump.

And Republicans nominating extremist Ronald Reagan was a gift to Jimmy Carter.
And Democrats nominating draft-dodging philanderer Bill Clinton was a gift to Bush sr.

[Tintrlvr]

Voters who caucused for Hillary in 2016:

Warren: 22%
Sanders: 0%

This could be Warren's trump card over Sanders.

It's her trump card over Biden, too. Biden can't assemble the Clinton coalition that defeated Sanders to defeat Warren because a lot of Clinton voters and supporters are already behind Warren (and plenty more currently supporting other candidates would defect to her if she becomes the clear frontrunner/non-Biden frontrunner).

[GeneralMacArthur]

SN is trolling, any credible challenger can beat Trump, Dems arent socialistic, voters dont want ethically challenged people like Biden and Trump, whom have dealings with Ukraine and Big Oil

WTF are you talking about? The only "scandal" involving Biden in Ukraine is that he represented the administration's (and international commununity's) overwhelming position in calling for the ouster of a crooked prosecutor because he was NOT prosecuting corruption cases, including the one against the company his son was affiliated with. The entire thing makes no sense if you think about it for more than two seconds.

Not even.  It wasn't against his son's company.  It was against a rich guy who owned a bunch of companies, including the one his son worked for.  And the case had been closed for a long time before either the prosecutor or Biden were in their positions.

[Canis]

Sanders support in IA seems to have really shifted toward Warren Sanders campaign claims to have registered more supporters in IA than in 2016 but the polling is concerning if I was Sanders id pursue NH and NV NV is a huge sleeper state for him

[Epaminondas]

Also, I guess we can safely retire the talking point of Saint Bernie being The Most Popular Politician in America.

Bernie's 2016 policies are adopted by every Dem candidate except Biden, so whether you want him or not, you're getting Bernie in 2020.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Also, I guess we can safely retire the talking point of Saint Bernie being The Most Popular Politician in America.

Bernie's 2016 policies are adopted by every Dem candidate except Biden, so whether you want him or not, you're getting Bernie in 2020.

Nice try moving the goalposts.

[JA]

The problem with Warren isn't that she holds positions far outside of the mainstream because, on economic issues, she doesn't. One of her main issues will be one shared by pretty much every Democrat - cultural and political polarization. Warren will come across as an East Coast, Ivy League, out-of-touch elitist to many potential swing voters. Culturally conservative Americans who might could stomach casting a vote for someone less culturally "alien" would struggle to vote for Warren. The same is true, to varying degrees, for every other Democrat as well (except, maybe Biden, but he risks alienating his left flank).

Another problem I can see with Warren is lower minority turnout. She doesn't perform horribly with minorities like Sanders does with older voters, but she doesn't perform that well either. I don't foresee her being a sufficiently motivating person to propel minority voters to the polls. That is a potentially more significant problem than alienating culturally conservative Independents.

Warren will do a remarkable job of firing up the Democratic base and will likely continue to make inroads into the urban and suburban areas - largely because of existing demographic trends in the suburbs that are favorable to the Democrats. College-educated women will be Warren's primary base. She will almost certainly significantly outperform even Clinton among White college-educated voters. The urban+suburban/rural divide will only intensify, the popular vote will likely be even more favorable to Warren (the threat of a third party eating away at her support is far less than it was to Clinton), Trump likely won't gain much (if any) from his 2016 base of support, and the electoral college will be competitive as it increasingly favors states that are unfavorable to Democrats like Warren.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Warren said she will pivot to the center once she wins nomination.  She endorses: impeaching Trump, raising minimum wage, 401 K accounts on top of SSA, and DC statehood.   Medicare for all and student loan forgiveness and teparations are tokens.

[BlueSwan]

She underperformed Clinton last year, I mean she was the only incumbent democratic senator to do so (with Menendez). She is toxic with white non college voters, and would underperform in wealthy suburbs, nominating her would be a gift to Trump.

And Republicans nominating extremist Ronald Reagan was a gift to Jimmy Carter.
And Democrats nominating draft-dodging philanderer Bill Clinton was a gift to Bush sr.

Nominating a wing candidate is MUCH more dangerous for democrats than for republicans for at least three reasons:

1) Conservatives are inherently more tribal than liberals and WILL gather around their leader almost no matter what, as seen in 2016 where Trumps favourables were in the dumpster even amongst republicans before he became the nominee and they basically all turned out for him.

2) Democrats have much more of a turnout problem due to having a larger share of low-propensity voters. These people are much more likely to sit it out if the nominee isn't exactly thei cup of tea than republicans.

3) It is much easier to fearmonger against a left-winger in america than against a right-winger which has been seen time and time again. The "socialist" label is toxic overall, even if it isn't amongst those under 35. Hell, even the "liberal" label isn't all that sellable. Democrats almost always have to run on being some sort of "moderate" who isn't going to take all of your money, whereas republicans can freely run on being "conservative".

This is why I am a left-winger who always support moderate democrats.

[Frenchrepublican]

She underperformed Clinton last year, I mean she was the only incumbent democratic senator to do so (with Menendez). She is toxic with white non college voters, and would underperform in wealthy suburbs, nominating her would be a gift to Trump.

And Republicans nominating extremist Ronald Reagan was a gift to Jimmy Carter.
And Democrats nominating draft-dodging philanderer Bill Clinton was a gift to Bush sr.

And what’s your point ? Are you denying that Warren was one the of the only two democratic incumbent senator up in last year to underperform Clinton ? It’s a fact, whether you like it or not.

[Gustaf]

There is actually some interesting analysis on Warren's last election:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/4-things-elizabeth-warrens-last-election-can-tell-us-about-2020/

Compared to Clinton, she did worse with rich voters and better with poor ones. Not much diff on minorities.

I think the main risk with Warren is if she scares off Romney-Clinton type voters too much. I think she has enough appeal to WWC voters for a Democrat. Not that she has a lot of it, but Democrats don't need a lot of it to win a general election anymore.

[Frenchrepublican]

There is actually some interesting analysis on Warren's last election:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/4-things-elizabeth-warrens-last-election-can-tell-us-about-2020/

Compared to Clinton, she did worse with rich voters and better with poor ones. Not much diff on minorities.

I think the main risk with Warren is if she scares off Romney-Clinton type voters too much. I think she has enough appeal to WWC voters for a Democrat. Not that she has a lot of it, but Democrats don't need a lot of it to win a general election anymore.

I generally agree with this article.

The point 1 is true, Warren would undoubtedly do far worse among +150k $ income voters than Clinton, I could see Darien voting for Trump if Warren is the D candidate.

Point 3 is also true, Warren would do very well in university counties where she would fired up progressive voters, Dane county would give her more than 75% in my humble opinion.

Point 4 is also mostly true, she would do well among minorities voters but she would likely underperform Obama among them.

But I really disagree with Point 2, Warren would be a horrible candidate for Obama/Trump voters. The author of the article is explaining that Warren would do well among these voters because she overperformed Clinton in Western Massachusetts, but western Massachusetts has more in common with Vermont than with Northeastern PA, the reason why Clinton did badly in western MA is that this area has a lot of die hard Berniecrats who voted third parties ; but these voters are not really comparable to Obama/Trump voters from Macomb county. It’s not a good comparison.

[wbrocks67]

Harris's favorability is very good - I think if she keeps pushing she could still finish Top 3 if Bernie continues to collapse, and Buttigieg is kind of all over the place in the polls (some closer to 4/5, some closer to 8/9)

[Landslide Lyndon]

She underperformed Clinton last year, I mean she was the only incumbent democratic senator to do so (with Menendez). She is toxic with white non college voters, and would underperform in wealthy suburbs, nominating her would be a gift to Trump.

And Republicans nominating extremist Ronald Reagan was a gift to Jimmy Carter.
And Democrats nominating draft-dodging philanderer Bill Clinton was a gift to Bush sr.

And what’s your point ? Are you denying that Warren was one the of the only two democratic incumbent senator up in last year to underperform Clinton ? It’s a fact, whether you like it or not.

My point is that when an incumbent runs for reelection, the election is a referendum on him and his record. That's why he always gets a percentage of the vote that more or less equals his approval rating.
The challenger's credentials, ideology, personality, etc., play a minor role, as long as he/she isn't Roy Moore-like radioactive.

So, if people think on election day that Trump is doing a good job, he'll get reelected. If they don't, they'll choose his opponent no matter how loud people like you scream about him/her being a socialist.  

[Epaminondas]

My point is that when an incumbent runs for reelection, the election is a referendum on him and his record. That's why he always gets a percentage of the vote that more or less equals his approval rating.
The challenger's credentials, ideology, personality, etc., play a minor role, as long as he/she isn't Roy Moore-like radioactive.

You say the darndest things.
That wasn't true in 2004 or in 2012.

Why should we believe it'll hold true in 2020?

[Landslide Lyndon]

You say the darndest things.
That wasn't true in 2004 or in 2012.

Um, yes it was.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

She underperformed Clinton last year, I mean she was the only incumbent democratic senator to do so (with Menendez). She is toxic with white non college voters, and would underperform in wealthy suburbs, nominating her would be a gift to Trump.

And Republicans nominating extremist Ronald Reagan was a gift to Jimmy Carter.
And Democrats nominating draft-dodging philanderer Bill Clinton was a gift to Bush sr.

And what’s your point ? Are you denying that Warren was one the of the only two democratic incumbent senator up in last year to underperform Clinton ? It’s a fact, whether you like it or not.

If she is so weak and underperformed Clinton, why is she beating Biden in IA, in a GOP tiilt state? Nominating Biden, whom is scandalous, is risky as well. We nominated Hilary and saw that scandals can hurt your election chances as well. Hilary was thought to be stronger than Bernie

[OneJ]

There is actually some interesting analysis on Warren's last election:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/4-things-elizabeth-warrens-last-election-can-tell-us-about-2020/

Compared to Clinton, she did worse with rich voters and better with poor ones. Not much diff on minorities.

I think the main risk with Warren is if she scares off Romney-Clinton type voters too much. I think she has enough appeal to WWC voters for a Democrat. Not that she has a lot of it, but Democrats don't need a lot of it to win a general election anymore.

I generally agree with this article.

The point 1 is true, Warren would undoubtedly do far worse among +150k $ income voters than Clinton, I could see Darien voting for Trump if Warren is the D candidate.

Point 3 is also true, Warren would do very well in university counties where she would fired up progressive voters, Dane county would give her more than 75% in my humble opinion.

Point 4 is also mostly true, she would do well among minorities voters but she would likely underperform Obama among them.

But I really disagree with Point 2, Warren would be a horrible candidate for Obama/Trump voters. The author of the article is explaining that Warren would do well among these voters because she overperformed Clinton in Western Massachusetts, but western Massachusetts has more in common with Vermont than with Northeastern PA, the reason why Clinton did badly in western MA is that this area has a lot of die hard Berniecrats who voted third parties ; but these voters are not really comparable to Obama/Trump voters from Macomb county. It’s not a good comparison.

How can you say this though? Do you have compelling evidence that she'd do poorly among Obama/Trump voters?

[Rookie Yinzer]

How can you say this though? Do you have compelling evidence that she'd do poorly among Obama/Trump voters?

He's just saying that because of how Warren makes him feel. I really would like to know how someone who doesn't even live in America knows what American voters want.

Warren at the very least would win back MI/WI/PA. Even if she can't exploit the shifts in the Sun Belt they're coming sooner or later so GOP is screwed there long term regardless.

[Frenchrepublican]

There is actually some interesting analysis on Warren's last election:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/4-things-elizabeth-warrens-last-election-can-tell-us-about-2020/

Compared to Clinton, she did worse with rich voters and better with poor ones. Not much diff on minorities.

I think the main risk with Warren is if she scares off Romney-Clinton type voters too much. I think she has enough appeal to WWC voters for a Democrat. Not that she has a lot of it, but Democrats don't need a lot of it to win a general election anymore.

I generally agree with this article.

The point 1 is true, Warren would undoubtedly do far worse among +150k $ income voters than Clinton, I could see Darien voting for Trump if Warren is the D candidate.

Point 3 is also true, Warren would do very well in university counties where she would fired up progressive voters, Dane county would give her more than 75% in my humble opinion.

Point 4 is also mostly true, she would do well among minorities voters but she would likely underperform Obama among them.

But I really disagree with Point 2, Warren would be a horrible candidate for Obama/Trump voters. The author of the article is explaining that Warren would do well among these voters because she overperformed Clinton in Western Massachusetts, but western Massachusetts has more in common with Vermont than with Northeastern PA, the reason why Clinton did badly in western MA is that this area has a lot of die hard Berniecrats who voted third parties ; but these voters are not really comparable to Obama/Trump voters from Macomb county. It’s not a good comparison.

How can you say this though? Do you have compelling evidence that she'd do poorly among Obama/Trump voters?

1. In 2018 she lost Plymouth county, the MA county with the largest cohort of Obama/Trump voters. She even underperformed Clinton in this place.

2. Polls show she is very weak among white non college voters, she is underperforming Biden by a lot among this kind of voter. And it’s not just one poll, every general election polls which have detailed results by social group back this point of view.

3. Generally speaking many of her positions are out of touch with Obama/Trump voters (Medicare for all, ending private insurances, public financing of abortions, ending the use of oil and natural gas)

4. Most Obama/Trump voters like and/or approve Trump, and with the exception of Biden it’s pretty hard to see even 1/4 of these voters voting D next year at the presidential level.

[Frenchrepublican]

How can you say this though? Do you have compelling evidence that she'd do poorly among Obama/Trump voters?

He's just saying that because of how Warren makes him feel. I really would like to know how someone who doesn't even live in America knows what American voters want.

Warren at the very least would win back MI/WI/PA. Even if she can't exploit the shifts in the Sun Belt they're coming sooner or later so GOP is screwed there long term regardless.

Well, you don’t even know what Georgians want, so don’t lecture me about this.


And no, Warren would have some difficulties to win back PA, 350.000 jobs depend from the fossil fuel industry in this state, banning natural gas and fracking won’t play well.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This was a case made for the Biden candidacy, before the Ukraine story.  Warren is still up 46/40 ahead of Trump in the Fox polls, and Trump is at 43%approval in WI, MI and PA. Warren wants to eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthy, that lost the GOP its majority, in 2018, in the House.

If you want to compare elections, Warren beat a very good Scott Brown in 2012, thats why she is doing well against Joe Biden. She beat Mitt Romney's protege. She knows how to win tough elections

[soundchaser]

Warren (smartly) didn't campaign in 2018 because she was saving her money for this run and was going to be fine regardless. It's no surprise that she underperformed, and it really doesn't say anything substantively damning about her election prospects in a general.