[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
politics and politicians Title: Bye-bye Biden? Warren leads in new national poll, tied for lead in another Bear in mind, these results are trickling in *before* Democratic voters have digested the allegations of corruption made against Biden in the Ukraine matter. Even if they opt not to believe them, how many will conclude that swing voters will believe them next fall and start discounting Biden’s alleged “electability” advantage? Imagine if Trump ends up being impeached for trying to make trouble abroad for a candidate who was never going to be his general election opponent anyway. A game-changing new poll from Quinnipiac: Not only is 27 percent the best Warren’s ever done in a national poll, it’s also the first time she’s led Biden outright in any national poll. As usual, she leads him in enthusiasm too: Fully 70 percent of Dems say they’d be excited to see her as nominee versus 56 percent who say the same of Biden. The real alarm bell for Grandpa Joe, though, is the split among black voters, as Philip Klein rightly notes: In California, it’s a similar story. A new LA Times poll finds Warren jumping to a 29 percent to 22 percent lead in the delegate-rich state overall, but, she’s only trailing Biden 32 percent to 24 percent among black voters. Sen. Kamala Harris, who is both black and from California, was at 18 percent among the group. Not only is Warren now second to Biden among black voters, trailing him 40/19, but Bernie Sanders has 12 percent of that group. If Bernie fades and black progressives begin drifting towards Warren, suddenly she’d be competitive with Joe among voters who are supposed to be his “firewall,” the group that will offset his losses among other demographics by preferring him overwhelmingly. Blacks no longer prefer him overwhelmingly, according to today’s Quinnipiac data. And given the general drift towards Warren in all polling lately, it’s likely that his lead among them will shrink rather than grow. Could the Quinnipiac poll be an outlier? Seems unlikely. This new data that dropped this morning from YouGov confirms that the race is a coin flip right now, with Warren and Biden neck and neck in the mid-20s. % naming candidate as their first choice (among likely voters): Warren: 25% All else 1% or less — G. Elliott Morris (@gelliottmorris) September 25, 2019 When Democratic voters are asked whom they’re considering voting for, Warren leads Biden 54/47. There are other polls lately that look like this too — Emerson recently had Biden up 25/23 and NBC/WSJ had it 31/25 in mid-September. There’s no reason, in other words, to think Quinnipiac and YouGov are “bad polls” for Biden or “good polls” for Warren. They seem to accurately reflect the state of the race at the moment, before the impact of the Ukraine stuff has been felt. In fact, as of today, Warren is the first candidate besides Biden to crack 20 percent in the RCP poll of polls since May. She seems to be for real. “But wait,” you say, “national polls are interesting but ultimately don’t matter. Iowa and New Hampshire are what matter.” Right, true — but Warren’s surging there too. I already posted this new Monmouth poll of New Hampshire yesterday but it’s worth eyeballing the numbers again: 1. If the Democratic primary election for president was today, would you vote for [NAMES WERE ROTATED]? [If UNDECIDED: If you had to vote for one of these candidates at this moment, who do you lean toward?] She’s just three points behind Biden in the RCP polling average of the state right now. And Iowa? Warren has led the field there in the last two polls taken, 24/16 over Biden in an Iowa State survey taken in mid-September and 22/20 in a Des Moines Register poll conducted a few days later. She’s up 2.7 points in the RCP average. If you had to make a bet on the Democratic primaries at this particular moment in time, Warren running the table would look like a fairly solid bet. The question is whether South Carolina’s mostly black Democratic electorate would stick with Biden if he lost the first two states or if they’d break for Warren if she won them. The signs there aren’t great for Biden either, per Politico: As strange as it is to imagine after the Democratic field initially ballooned to more than 20 candidates, the actual race could be over quickly once Democrats start voting. Which means Trump will never have a chance to use the Ukraine matter against Biden — but Warren will have lots of chances to use it against Trump. Good lord. Exit question: Kamala Harris is now at three percent nationally, per Quinnipiac? Was even Scott Walker’s 2016 flameout as embarrassing as this? Poster Comment: Brutal numbers for Biden. And these were before most of the news about his own Ukraine scandal came out. Will Team Biden even survive the journey to the Iowa caucus? And Warren is taking the black vote away from him, his last stronghold. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 30. Now if Warren were a black woman, but I'm not allowed to go there?
#9. To: paraclete (#8) Now if Warren were a black woman, but I'm not allowed to go there? Would you settle for a #FakeCherokee if she were further Left than Karl Marx?
#10. To: Tooconservative, paraclete (#9) (Edited) Would you settle for a #FakeCherokee The fact that this Cherokee thing is the main argument against Warren shows two things. First her opponents are desperate, second she is going to be the next President (unless Trump has some tremendous successes).
further Left than Karl Marx? Taxing great wealth is not Karl Marx idea, abolishing it altogether is. Taxing it (akin to FDR New Deal) would prolong the life of capitalism (like restart of Monopoly Game or Jubilee year). Radical Marxists would not have it. They would rather prefer greater concentration of wealth in few hands and misery of common people, so revolution becomes possible.
#16. To: A Pole, Tooconservative, paraclete (#10) The fact that this Cherokee thing is the main argument against Warren shows two things. First her opponents are desperate, second she is going to be the next President (unless Trump has some tremendous successes). Should Warren be nominated, Trump will be reelected in a landslide. Her stated policies may work in a radical socialist Democrat primary, but would challenge George McGovern for the record for electoral college failure (520-17).
#19. To: nolu chan (#16) Should Warren be nominated, Trump will be reelected in a landslide. Her stated policies may work in a radical socialist Democrat primary, but would challenge George McGovern for the record for electoral college failure (520-17). Wanna bet? If this were 1980 that would be true. But the warnings about Reaganomics - that the "trickle down" economics actually results in the rich pulling up the ladder - that is visible everywhere. And so many families are now crashing out of the middle class because of illness that can't be covered. No, the jig is up. There will be substantial wealth redistribution in America, from the very top. It won't be crazy Bernie style - he won't be elected. Warren is measured, a capitalist not a socialist, and a social democrat, as opposed to a democratic socialist. There is a world of difference between the two. Universal health insurance paid by taxes, and wealth taxation are key aspects of the future, and of the solution to two of the most pressing and persistent problems of America. Trouble is, the Republicans won't ever acknowledge either thing. They keep holding the fort trying to resist all change. In the Obamacare age, they had the opportunity to present their OWN policy option, but all that is, is status quo. And then came the Obamacare repeal, and now that insurers are making a ton of money from it, the status quo is: don't repeal it. Anyway, it's pointless to argue with Republicans on these things. They will be determined by power, not by argument. My part of the country: the Independent middle, decides everything, and the Republicans have lost us on untaxing the rich - no, they must be taxed more to bring what they pay in line with the far heavier tax burden that we bear: the rich have to pay the same percentage of THEIR wealth in taxes that the middle class does. Right now they pay FAR less. That will end. And everybody needs government health insurance. There's no other way to afford care against diseases that randomly strike everybody. Those will be the issues THIS election that will move the middle towards Warren, if she's the nominee. The wild card is Trump. HE has always believed in some sort of universal care. If HE co-opts that issue, he gives the middle the ability for the middle to vote for our policy. Likewise, if he agrees that the overconcentration of wealth at the top needs to be addressed, and agrees to something like the wealth tax, and says he's going to focus on making the economy more competitive and responsive so that more people get rich and have to pay those taxes - well, he will have found the sweet spot. The Democrats are all going to come out and vote for their nominee. The Republicans always vote. The question is what people like me - the Independent middle will do. Warren v. Trump will be a very hard decision. Biden v. Trump is easy: Trump. Anybody else v. Trump is easy: Trump. With Warren, it's hard because she has the right policies, and only Democrats can get those things through...unless Trump surprises us.
#30. To: Vicomte13, Tooconservative (#19)
With Warren, it's hard because she has the right policies Posted without comment. https://freebeacon.com/politics/warren-backs-aocs-illegal-immigrant-welfare-plan/
Warren Backs AOC’s Illegal Immigrant Welfare Plan
Replies to Comment # 30. Warren is calculating how far Left she has to go to grab the nomination. She worries about how she'll tack back to the political center to pick up the indies after getting the nomination. But without the nomination, none of it means anything. She doesn't want to be the next Hitlery, full of regrets for the rest of her life over something as simple as paying a few campaign visits to MI/WI/PA. Or taking the most hard-Left positions during the early primaries.
#33. To: nolu chan (#30) Rent control is bad policy. Much better policy is government-built housing projects for the very poor. Government projects (not prisons) should house the derelict homeless and those who cannot afford other housing. People who can afford better housing than that, and who want to, can rent on the private market. The private market needs firm regulation for health and safety standards (there are grim illegal tenements in New York, still, and the landlords who operate them should be punished financially and criminally when they are caught), but rent control is a mistake. Build a lot of cheap government welfare housing, so that there is no homelessness, and leave the nicer things to the private market.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 30. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|