I don’t think Wall Street sees much daylight between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Both are seen as wholly unacceptable options for president. But Democratic voters have a (probably less-informed) opinion of the two candidates.
Democratic primary voters nationwide see former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren as relatively close to their own political views but regard Sen. Bernie Sanders as significantly further to their left, a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll shows.
The Democrats see Biden as slightly more conservative than themselves and Warren as slightly more liberal, the poll found.
Given that perception, it’s easy to see why Biden is doing so well. What’s a Democrat to think, for example, when they look at the results of this recent ClimateNexus poll of out Texas that shows Biden and Trump tied but Trump beating Sanders by four and Warren by six?
If Biden and Warren are basically the same, why not go with the candidate who is putting Texas in play?
This isn’t an isolated example. Biden consistently polls as well as, and most often better than, any other Democrat matched up against the president. Maybe that’s a temporary state of affairs, but it hasn’t gone unnoticed.
The USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll is the only one to correctly predict that Trump would win in 2016, so their results should be taken seriously. I think their findings speak well of how Warren is running her campaign. Business tycoons might not be fooled, but a lot of voters falsely believe she’s closer ideologically to Biden than she is to Sanders, and it’s benefitting her greatly in the polls. By encouraging himself to be branded as the left-wing outlier in the race, Sanders seems stuck in place with little room for growth. It’s much better to be in Warren’s position where she’s dividing the hard left’s support with Sanders but also dividing the center’s support with Biden.
Having said that, Sanders may be stagnating overall but he’s still right in the mix in a three-way race, and he just got a poll result out of New Hampshire that shows him in the lead there. Of course, there’s another poll that shows in third place in the Granite State, but he’s certainly competitive. He’s not going to go much lower, which means he should collect delegates in nearly every state, but I have trouble seeing how he breaks out of the high-teens/low-twenties and starts winning a lot of contests. Warren is certainly better situated than he is to pick up any defectors from Biden.
For the same reason, she’s demonstrating much more promise than Sanders as a general election candidate. She has more ability than he does to be nimble and adjust, and people are more willing to see in her what they want to see, versus Bernie. who seemingly hasn’t changed a thing since he first ran to be the mayor of Burlington, Vermont in the 1980’s.
In any case, it seems like Biden and Warren can and will eventually swap supporters. with relative ease, meaning that whoever wins out between them will probably capture the nomination. Obviously, all caveats about it being very early apply here, but the shape of the race is becoming clear. Maybe Thursday’s debate in Houston will shake things up.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Iowa and New Hampshire are just too important this go around. If Biden wins either of them, I don’t see how he’s stopped, especially if it’s Iowa. Sanders needs to win both and Nevada to have a chance, and if he does that I think he has a very good shot (and polling shows this a distinct possibility). Warren must win Iowa too (or prevent Biden from winning), but it’s possible a win there will be sufficient to snowball into the nomination. However, I’m not as confident about that as I am with Biden.
I read something today on a right-wing site opining that “the establishment” is more comfortable with Warren than with Sanders because she is perceived as less “sincere” than Sanders. This was followed by stories from sources like Ed Rendell (who I assume is a Biden supporter) about her “hypocrisy” is attending one of his donor events while decrying Biden for attending a similar event. I had just read a story about Warren’s calling up small donors to thank them, and commenting that she had time to do the because she didn’t have to spent time on the phone with billionaire donors like some of the other candidates. A year ago, I was a big Warren supporter, but I confess that something in the right-wing piece I mentioned does sort of resonate with me. I have a difficult time putting my finger on just why my ardor for Warren has cooled, but I think it had something to do with her “plans.” I happen to be a big fan of planning, and have participated in some significant planning processes for system change in my professional life. To me, there is something glib and superficial about Warren’s “plans.” I see them getting traction with voters, and I wonder if people really think that creating access to child care, or expanding affordable housing, is really that simple. Sometimes I wonder if the plans are serving as a kind of short cut that allows people to think that all they have to do is elect Warren, and they will get these things — an end to student debt, free health care for all, and so forth. In a way, the plans remind me of some of #45’s promises and his “I alone can fix it.” I don’t want Biden as the nominee, and I question Bernie’s electability in a general election. I’m not sure I think Warren is that much more electable; I am sure that the other side will make much of the price tag of what she offers. As an old Marxist, I’m a little dismayed that “leftist” has come to mean spending lots of money on things. If she is the nominee, I will certainly vote for her and probably canvass for her, but I wish I could be more enthusiastic.
Because you want Bernie Sanders instead? I supported Bernie in 2016, he represents my politics the best of any of the candidates, but my support for him has similarly cooled because Warren is in the race and I think she’d be a better president. It’s also a strategic choice in that I think she’s got the best shot at the nom. If she was polling like Harris I’d vote Bernie.
I mean, to me your criticism (or highlighting of ratfucking right wing narratives) could equally and more accurately apply to Bernie.
No, I actually don’t support Bernie; I question whether he’d be effective as president. I don’t think either he or Warren has the necessary skill set to be President. But the Pennsylvania primary is not until April 28, and I feel no pressure to make up my mind.
Many of Warren’s plans are impossible without flipping the Senate, but that does not
dampen my enthusiasm for her. But, as you note, many people no doubt will believe that if they vote for her, all of her agenda will magically fall into place. Fortunately, a lot of other people (most, I hope) will recognize that the heavy lifting starts when she is elected.
What’s a Democrat to think, for example, when they look at the results of this recent ClimateNexus poll of out Texas that shows Biden and Trump tied but Trump beating Sanders by four and Warren by six?
I saw a poll by a more reputable outfit(Monmouth maybe but not sure) that says Biden, Sanders and Warren would all beat Trump in Texas. So I’d take ClimateNexus with a grain a salt.
Are we really chasing after Texas now? That could be a great big loser.
The USC poll might have “correctly” predicted the winner, but they were about as accurate as Monmouth and Surveymonkey. In other words, among the worst of national polls. What they (inadvertently) captured is the disparity between national vote totals and electoral college. There’s a reason why the polling aggregators use state polls whenever possible.
“If Biden and Warren are basically the same…” That’s a pretty big if in my book. Maybe their views are close if you just rate them on a left to right scale, but not if you dig in for some details. More to the point, I think Warren is a better candidate, with more energy and a sharper mind. I do agree that Warren seems to have better potential than Sanders.
Legendary former organizer and current Harvard professor Marshall Ganz has spent a couple of decades now teaching students what he calls “the art of public narrative”. The backbone of successful and persuasive public narrative is, according to Ganz, the ability to tell and to link together “the story of self, the story of us, and the story of now”.
I’d argue (from a distance) that a major piece of Warren’s success so far, and a reason she has greater ability to maneuver going forward, is that she’s done a good job creating a public narrative that connects with Democratic primary voters.
*She’s leaned into her Oklahoma “ragged edge of the middle class” childhood, and her struggles as a young adult;
*She weaves that into a story of who we are as Americans; and
*She talks about the challenges we face today and how she (and we) can address them.
All candidates do the same, to some extent. But her closest current challengers have noticeably weaker (at least by Ganz’ standards) public narratives.
*Sanders remains strikingly reticent about his own story, and how it made him the man—and politician—that he is.
*Biden, by contrast, has a great “story of self” he’s spent decades honing; but his “story of now” clangs harshly on the ears of Democrats fed up with the increasingly anti-democratic tactics of Republicans, and with Democratic invocations of a long-gone “golden age” of bipartisanship.
All that said, Biden remains the frontrunner and Sanders has what may be the most solid base of support in the race.