Last Week, Warren may have won the Democratic Race

[bluewater]

by John Judis, editor-at-large at Talking Points Memo. He was a senior editor of The New Republic and senior writer for The National Journal.

At the risk of appearing foolhardy several months hence, I want to say that in the last week, it has become very likely that Elizabeth Warren will win the Democratic nomination. A two-tier race, with Warren, Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders in the top tier, has become a race largely of Warren against herself.

Sanders – justifiably in my opinion, and I am of the same rough age – always faced questions about his age. These questions have been answered in the negative, sadly, by his recent heart attack. Voters will be right to doubt whether someone of Sanders’ age and medical history can handle one of the most stressful jobs on earth – especially, in Sanders’ case, because he would be coming into the job anew and face a hostile Washington and Wall Street. He needs to prepare for a graceful exit.

Biden, on paper, has always been the most electable Democrat, and if the presidential election had been held last month, he probably would have won. To undecided voters in swing states – and I always believe they number more than the political scientists claim – Biden comes off as “one of us.” It’s an inestimable advantage that Warren, for instance, doesn’t enjoy. He has also steered clear of extreme positions that would cost him in a general election. But Biden seems even slower on the uptake than in the past. I don’t believe these claims that he (or Trump for that matter) has dementia – enough with these amateur psychiatrists! – but he shows the disabilities of age.

A younger, quicker Biden might have nailed down the nomination this last week in response to Donald Trump’s predictably irresponsible attacks on him. He would have been all over the talk shows and on the stump. Instead, he has remained closeted, perhaps out of fear that if he does subject himself to questions, he will be stumble. To be sure, Hunter Biden may have been up to no good, but Biden could have used the attacks against his son to highlight his having to surmount a succession of family tragedies. One could feel this week the nomination slipping away from Biden.

That leaves Warren in a tier of her own unless she stumbles. Count me as an admirer. The left-wingers at Jacobin and Current Affairs like to contrast Sanders’s support for a “political revolution” with Warren as a would-be Washington insider, but Warren the outsider led the fight against the bankruptcy law and for the Consumer Finance protection Agency. She was a harsh and effective critic of the Obama White House’s timid approach to Wall Street in 2009. There’s little difference between her programs and Sanders’.

Warren’s problem, if anything, is that she is too close politically to Sanders and has heeded too much the siren call of the metropolitan and college town liberals. She needs to think about winning an electoral college majority in November 2020, and that means backing off programs that raise the specter of higher taxes for the working class or that would allow Trump to paint the Democrats as cultural elitists. That means moving away from Medicare for All, decriminalizing illegal immigration, and reparations. There is nothing wrong, for instance, with advocating Medicare for All as an ultimate goal and Medicare for Anyone as the immediate means to shore up the Affordable Care Act.


https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/last-week-warren-may-have-won-the-democratic-nomination

[blm]

1. Feels premature

[bluewater]

2. a bit, but the RCP POLLS tracker of major polls shows a dead heat today

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

Support seems to have migrated from Sanders to Warren over the last week of polling.

Time will tell.

[LanternWaste]

3. I s'pose the "it's too early for polls to mean anything!" cry has abated.

At least when they fit particular narratives.

[qazplm135]

6. sigh

first of all, no one said it's too early for the polls to mean "anything."

second of all, the polls are too close to do anything but say Warren and Biden are tied.

third, general election polls don't mean anything because it's 13 months before the election.

fourth, primary polling has SOME meaning but there are a myriad number of events that can change things like a serious flub, a health scare, a string of poor performances at debates, economic changes, etc.

Fifth, as we get closer to voting the voting will increase in meaning.

got it now?

[bluewater]

8. It's October 7th lol

Time marches on.

People do need to peruse the calendar and stay more current, eh?

[HeartlandProgressive]

10. Bazinga!

It's a month past Labor Day, Halloween is around the corner.

Perhaps some people have dozed off and not noticed the leaves are starting to fall?

[treestar]

26. +1

it could still change.

[Gothmog]

31. Biden is only candidate beating trump in Wisconsin outside margin of error

Link to tweet

[BlueMTexpat]

17. To me too.

But I would like to believe.

There's a LONG way to go yet and many constituencies to convince.

[qazplm135]

4. eh, long way to go

I do think it's down to her or Biden, but we still have a ways to go.

[Sherman A1]

7. Pardon me for a minute

It is a really, really long way to go yet and traditionally early front runners do not end up with the nomination from my understanding.

[Hortensis]

9. Last week Warren was on a nearby ridge

overlooking a major RW assault against our frontrunner by Russian and Republican armies, augmented by the hostile far left and media who serve both.

So his ratings have dipped because some people are clueless dips, and hers have risen correspondingly as fools buy the media story that she did it by being so wonderful.

Not saying she isn't, but what's happening is not exactly a rising national awareness of that. A good part of it is people who don't know what to think being jerked around, about as stable and reliable as...well, themselves.

[HeartlandProgressive]

11. Biden's numbers have not dipped much at all.

Sanders' numbers have, especially over the last week, and Warren's numbers have gained ground at an accelerated pace.

[Hortensis]

15. :) Oh, that's good to hear, for all three. I haven't been

watching the polls but just see headlines all over speculating on Biden's demise, yada-yada. Hillary's tough, and I imagine she can cynically watch the election media spinning their toxic deceptions and other "contributions" to this election more calmly than I can. They all have to be really tough.

[George II]

12. I just got a bulletin from the DNC, the primaries have been cancelled.

[Hortensis]

16. Lol. I'm hearing a brokered convention is inevitable,

but now between Sanders, Warren and Steyer.

[Faux pas]

13. Kickin'

[Gothmog]

14. Poll: Biden holds 24-point lead over Democratic field among black voters

Link to tweet

Former Vice President Joe Biden is the top pick among black voters, with a 24 point lead over his closest competitor in the 2020 Democratic primary field, according to a new poll.

A Hill-HarrisX survey found that 36 percent of registered black voters said they want Biden to be the party's nominee, followed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) with 12 percent support.

No other candidate received double-digit support. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) tied for third place, garnering 8 percent each.

[George II]

18. More directly than merely a 24 point lead, Biden has a three times lead - 36% to 12%....

...much more significant.

[bluewater]

19. Biden only has 36% of African American voters' support?

No wonder Warren is catching up in the national polls.

Sure, South Carolina expects ~60% of the Democratic primary voters to be African Americans, but that's quite the exception, even for the south.

Black voters have essentially been the bedrock Joe's campaign has been depending on to date. 36% of that support simply isn't enough, especially since Biden is polling so poorly with younger voters.

Time will tell where all voters will end up come actual voting.

[George II]

20. On the other hand, Warren has only 8% of African American voters' support? You're knocking...

Biden for "only" having 36% of AA voters' support, all the while your candidate has less than one-quarter of Biden's support.

[bluewater]

21. Yep, Biden only has 36% of African American support right now, that isn't enough

It's why Warren has almost tied him in the RCP POLLS AVERAGE of the major polls:


Anyone can see the trend for themselves:

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

Biden at only 36% support amongst Black voters, means the majority of black voters either support another candidate or are undecided.

It is estimated that Black democrats comprise ~19% of the base.

Biden's 36% of that 19% is 6.8% of the Democratic voters in total.

Warren's 12% of that 19% is 2.3% of Democratic voters in total.

That means Biden's current lead in support amongst African American voters amounts to 4.5% of all Democratic voters.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-voter-groups-20180320-story.html

While that 4.5% number is significant, it in no way is enough to ensure a Biden primary victory. Especially since Joe is polling poorly with another significant segment of the Democratic base, namely younger voters.

And, it goes without saying, Biden's lead amongst Black voters has been eroding, as evidenced by Warren now having 12% of that according to your own numbers.

[George II]

22. So then....

Biden at only 36% support amongst Black voters, means the majority of black voters either support another candidate or are undecided.

What does that say for a candidate that has only 8% (not 12%), less than one quarter? Biden has only 4% less than Sanders, Warren, Harris AND "Undecided" combined. Hard to spin that as a positive for Warren.

[Gothmog]

24. Why Black Voters Prefer Establishment Candidates Over Liberal Alternatives

I personally believe that Iowa and New Hampshire are essentially meaningless. These states are 90+% white and do not represent the demographics of the party. The primary process does not really start until South Carolina where the voting population reflects the demographics of the party as a whole.

I found this article from 538 to be very informative https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-do-black-democrats-usually-prefer-establishment-candidates/

So here are a few explanations for why black voters have tended to side with the establishment wing of the Democratic Party. I have tried to order these explanations from strongest to weakest (in my view, at least):

1. Establishment candidates typically have existing ties to the black community
This will sound tautological, but an establishment candidate is … well … established. A candidate who is part of the establishment wing of the Democratic Party likely has fairly strong ties to major constituencies in the party, such as labor unions, women’s rights groups and, of course, black leaders and voters. So when black voters backed Gov. Andrew Cuomo over Cynthia Nixon in New York’s Democratic gubernatorial primary last year, or Andy Beshear over Adam Edelen in Kentucky’s Democratic gubernatorial primary earlier this year, that was not shocking. Not only did Beshear and Cuomo spend years developing their own ties with the black communities in their states, but their fathers did, too. (Steve Beshear was governor of Kentucky, Mario Cuomo the governor of New York.)

Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020 similarly entered the primaries with longstanding ties to black voters. It’s worth considering if the story here is not that establishment candidates are smarter in appealing and connecting with black voters during the campaign, compared to anti-establishment candidates. Maybe it’s that the establishment candidate in a race is likely to be the person who enters the campaign with the strongest support among black voters.

2. Black voters are pragmatic
White Democrats are significantly more likely than black Democrats to describe themselves as liberal. Perhaps that’s the simple explanation for why most black voters eschew more liberal candidates. But scholars of black voters argue that the liberal-moderate-conservative framework does not apply well to predicting the actual policy positions and voting behavior of black Americans.

I agree with the conclusion of this article

But even if Sanders or Warren gets more support among black voters in 2020 than the Vermont senator did in 2016, I tend to think Biden will remain fairly popular with black voters overall — because of his ties to Obama and other black leaders and the perception that he can defeat Trump. So there is a very real possibility that black voters will play the same role in the 2020 presidential primary that they have played in Democratic politics over much of the last four years: blocking the path of the liberal left as it attempts to dethrone the party’s establishment.

[Gothmog]

23. Biden has 50% in South Carolina

Link to tweet

[still_one]

33. These not so subtle posts that have been trying to diminish Biden since he entered the race, by the

same posters are quite amusing

First of all Democratic primaries are not winner take all, and brushing off the South, where it currently looks like Biden will capture most of the delegates there, and split the delegates in the other states between the top tier candidates, only show how ridiculous OPs that push these supposed predictions are

[Gothmog]

34. The 15% rule will also help Biden

[still_one]

35. absolutely

[Gothmog]

38. But with black voters Biden gets 63% to 6% for Sanders

Link to tweet

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

36. I sincerely doubt that poll means that only 36% of African Americans

would vote for Biden, and only 12% for Sanders, and so on down the list.

I expect that much like white Democratic voters, African Americans will mostly vote for the nominee, whoever that turns out to be.

[treestar]

25. It's too early

the others won't just give up.

[Gothmog]

27. Biden continues to perform better than Warren in head-to-head match-ups against Trump

Link to tweet

[lapfog_1]

28. good... saves us the trouble of voting

no need for a convention either.

Oh, as for the general election... I guess we can just game it out right now and declare a winner. Only right now that might not be warren, oops.

[comradebillyboy]

29. Warren is looking good but it's a bit early to declare her

the winner. She's definitely challenging Biden for the lead though. I like both of them and I think both are quite electable.

[Gothmog]

30. There's only one person who can turn Ohio blue

Link to tweet

[still_one]

32. bullshit. Not only is the first primary months away, but there are still a significant number

of undecided Democrats, along with those supporters of second and third tier candidates

Anyone projecting the winner of the Democratic primaries this far out is just demonstrating their personal bias

There are a lot of factors involved, including the fact that National Polls are not a good predictor who will be the Democratic nominee, Democratic primaries are not winner take all, many of the candidates have not been vetted sufficiently, which is why there are still a large number of undecided voters

[BlueMississippi]

37. I thought I was reading the onion

[Gothmog]

39. Black vote in SC in new Qpac poll:

Link to tweet