Elizabeth Warren is the best candidate for president. Why isn't she higher in the polls?

[Soph0571]

If this were a job interview, as opposed to a deeply flawed state-by-state popularity contest, she would be streets ahead of the competition. But it is starting to seem like the Democratic primary is snubbing Warren even as her opponents copy all of her policy homework. In the latest polls, despite the fact that this cycle’s Democratic field boasts more highly qualified female candidates than any previous presidential primary in history – Warren, as well as California senator Kamala Harris, New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar – the top three candidates are all white men: former vice-president Joe Biden, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, and South Bend mayor (and viral sensation) Pete Buttigieg.

None of them can boast anything even close to the sheer weight of policy proposals Warren has set forward. She recently told a CNN town hall event that “if we put a 2 per cent tax on the wealthiest families in the country, we can provide universal Pre-K, universal free college, knock back student loan debt for 95 per cent of Americans – and still have a trillion dollars leftover”. It’s not just a good soundbite: her education plan – published in full – is incredibly detailed.

[link:https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2019/04/elizabeth-warren-best-candidate-president-why-isn-t-she-higher-polls|

Interesting Analysis. Thoughts?

[Sherman A1]

1. Thoughts?

It is an opinion piece just like a zillion other opinion pieces that we have or will see during this primary season.

[IluvPitties]

2. Warren, so far, has lacked charisma. Same thing with Klobuchar.

Meanwhile, Harris has it. In politics, charisma means a lot.

[milestogo]

4. Trump has proven that charisma aint worth shit.

And if people haven't learned that by now, they never will.

[IluvPitties]

5. Wrong. Trump is highly energetic and bombastic.

That is seen as charismatic by the general public. He stole the energy out of the Republican debates and made true politicians like Jeb, Marco, Christie and all the others look boring and stale in comparison.

America likes shiny. Ask Carter and Bush Sr., two bland guys who only lasted one term.

[milestogo]

8. He aint worth shit as a President.

[IluvPitties]

10. True. But it doesn't matter.

We pick someone who Trump can outshine and we will lose.

[milestogo]

11. I remember Bill Maher saying the Democrats should run an asshole.

Like Anthony Weiner. There is some truth in this.

[Funtatlaguy]

15. He certainly shares everything about himself. 🌭

[JI7]

19. no there isn't. Democrats can't get away with the shit that Republicans do

much of it is because democrats appeal to different types of people.

even charismatic democrats like Obama are still good kind people, they are not assholes.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

24. Interesting..why did he say that?

[milestogo]

66. Because so many people seem to like asshole Trump that it almost seems like a positive.

[Laelth]

17. Thus, my support for Beto. n/t

-Laelth

[JI7]

20. Elizabeth Warren outshines Trump in every way that counts. only area she doesn't outshine him

is in spewing hateful bigotry.

[JI7]

18. Trump is not seen as charismatic by the "general public" . he is liked by bigots and he appeals to

them with his hatred of other people.

he did not make the others look boring and stale. he just made them seem less hateful and bigoted than him . he was the most hateful. the most bigoted. that's all that mattered.

[Laelth]

59. Point. n/t

-Laelth

[spooky3]

64. This times a zillion. Nt

[John Fante]

82. You're using two men who won the presidency as examples

of how bland doesn't win?

[JI7]

85. and ignoring the economy which is what hurt them

[bloom]

49. Warren has plenty of 'charisma'.

I don't know what you're talking about.

[spooky3]

63. Agree. And this gets perilously close to the

“Competent women are not likeable” effect shown repeatedly in research studies.

[USALiberal]

83. So it is a real issue, how do you fix it? nt

[bloom]

94. It's starts with each of us - including you n/t

[katmondoo]

77. I find her very compelling. She was a great debater in school and I do not believe she lost

that ability

[BeyondGeography]

51. Obviously wrong...watch for yourself

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128793058

[katmondoo]

61. I disagree, she has lots of energy and sparkle. She outshone Clinton

when they were together. She has passion and gives one a feeling of resolve that she will follow through on her policies.

[Indygram]

89. Energy and sparkle is not charisma, though

I think some people may not be viewing charisma in the correct way. Someone can be really boisterous, outgoing and energetic and not be charismatic.

Charisma is the ability to motivate and inspire people in such a powerful way that they are compelled to act on the message that person is delivering. That's why the candidate who has the most charisma always wins. Warren is very impressive and has a lot of thoroughly planned ideas and policies but she just doesn't have the level of charisma that can beat Trump. No one likes to hear that charisma matters so much, but it does. Just look at every election since 1980 when CNN started the 24 hour news cycle.

[forgotmylogin]

107. Warren has charisma, it's just a different kind.

I called it "favorite teacher" charisma.

I like Harris, but I don't think her habit of falling back repetitively to "let's have a conversation about that" when she's not ready to answer a question - while understandable and valid - is going to look good when Warren's got her positions and policy pretty much nailed down.

[milestogo]

3. Analyzing the candidates is easy, understanding the Dems is hard.

She is by far the most qualified candidate, as good as Hillary Clinton, but without the years of being attacked by the right.

[Zoonart]

6. I love Elizabeth Warren...

and she has great policy proposals... but...when I listen to her I hear Hillary. She comes off too wonkish, peppering you with proposals,
sometimes it feels almost haranguing to me. i think I have 2016 PTSD. I feel burned by what happened to Hillary and I am gun shy.

Besides. I feel strongly that we should keep our most talented Senators in the Senate. Just MHO.

[Ninga]

41. The law of attraction at work. Believe it, see it and it becomes true. I see her as an

awesome leader.

[DCofVA]

45. I'm gun shy too, for the opposite reason.

The last two white male Presidents have SUCKED so bad! If we never go that way again, I’ll be happy. Fortunately, we have such a great woman candidate this time round, the gender of the other candidates is no longer a factor.

[Demsrule86]

68. Are you saying Obama sucked? He didn't and basing your vote on gender only

Is no different than those who would never vote for a woman. Both such votes could be considered sexist.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

93. they said the last two *white* male presidents, who were Bush II and Clinton.

Bush II definitely sucked, but Clinton?

[femmedem]

7. Until recently, I thought the media and Trump had smeared her enough to make her unelectable.

Nearly all her press coverage had to do with her DNA rather than her policies. I was angry about it, but I didn't think she would be able to recover.

But the response to her CNN town hall and SheThePeople appearances has been so positive that I think she can overcome this. I'm especially buoyed by the inroads she seems to be making with POC. I suspect that Biden's entry will help her as people learn about their stances on the bankruptcy bill from 2005.

I might well end up voting for Warren rather than Buttigieg, and I'm sure I'm not alone in reevaluating her electability.

[marylandblue]

36. You are not alone. She actually does seem charismatic when you watch her.

Her press coverage downplays her speaking skills. She certainly is a wonk, but she is energetic and funny on stage.

I just hope she has learned to never let Trump get under skin again.

[Laelth]

60. She's a compelling, charismatic person. I agree. n/t

-Laelth

[Irishxs]

9. She would be a stable, wonderful president.

[Blues Heron]

12. I just don't trust ex-republicans. Maybe she saw the light, but still

Huge mark against her in my book.

[MaryMagdaline]

57. Converts make the best devotees

They work harder to make up for lost time.

[Funtatlaguy]

78. Hillary was a College Republican

[Blues Heron]

80. Exactly

[ecstatic]

99. I felt the same way, but I my intuition tells me

that she's changed. She seems to be going with her gut now and I find it sincere and credible.

[rurallib]

13. Like so much in our world, the media has created a personna for her that

is very much unlike what Elizabeth Warren is in real life.
Sadly that is what 99% of the public will see as their reality.
She is being viewed as a wonkish school warm type who is kind of cold and reclusive.

When people actually bother yo watch her speak or dive an interview on TV or see her in person, that media created personna is quickly dispatched.

Our SIL had the media appointed view of her until two weeks ago. He watched her speak and his view was immediately changed.

We had the good fortune to see her in person yesterday. Very impressive.
Extremely smart with solid policies but also a very real person.

I have been split between Harris, Warren and Inslee. After yesterday I am almost ready to get on the warren bandwagon.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

28. Hmmm...the media created her persona??? She is

The one who creates her image by how she presents herself.

I think she is obviously the most prepared on issues and has ideas on how to fix things. But to me she comes across as way too hyper. Think people want animation of course, but you have to mix it with calm. I have learned you can't say shrill because the word police will get you..but...

[Ninga]

43. She is in my top three. And yes the media told us what to think about her, when they allowed

detractors to frame Hillary.

Warren displays her professor creds when she takes on a topic...passionately.

She is who she is and if she were to try and walk away from some of her personality traits, it would be a disaster for her.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

70. I agree. Just talking purely demeanor. I love her brain and her policies and passion. My point is

That there needs to be some modulation. If all you hear is on 10, you need to see some cool calm and collected in there. Just my opinion, since OP asked.

[Fiendish Thingy]

62. So is "creepy Uncle Joe" a media creation?...

Or an image created by how Biden presents himself?

I think Warren has struggled to find her groove, but where you see her as hyper, I see her in recent weeks as presenting herself with a slightly restrained passion, with clearly articulated policies, backed by a consistent, morally principled record.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

87. Great. Like her. Glad she modulated !! Yup...biden

caused stir himself.

[Kurt V.]

14. ppl are so terrified of more trump they aren't thinking straight. Coming from a position

of fear could cost us dearly

[Laelth]

16. She is a great candidate.

Polls show, however, that “electability” is the criterion that drives most Democrats in the age of Trump. For some reason, it appears that many Democrats consider Elizabeth Warren unelectable ... as tragic as this may be.

I have no explanation for it.

-Laelth

[marylandblue]

38. At the moment, sexism.

If it were just based on resumes, positions, and personality, Warren, Harris, and Klobuchar would all be considered equally or more electable than the current men in the lead.

[Laelth]

55. That seems the most likely explanation, yes. n/t

-Laelth

[Ohiogal]

21. She is my #1 choice

But our electorate seems to think electing a President is a popularity contest, now .....and of course a whip smart woman will never win. We ran the best candidate last time who happened to be female, and look what happened. And God forbid that woman be older than 50. Too many backwards thinkers in this country. It is disgusting.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

29. Yes. In Texas, I see bigotry against women as rampant.

Think it's #1. Even many women don't think women should run things.

[marylandblue]

40. Warren has advantages over Clinton that could help her out.

She's a better speaker, and I like that she takes the sexism issue head on, thereby defanging it.

It's harder for a woman, but not impossible.

[lark]

22. Women have a steeply uphill battle in this country.

The news has gotten behind Biden, Bernie and Mayor Pete but not the women. The woman are still getting negatives or ignored, which is so wrong. Warren definitely is the policy maven, which I love. I do think she sometimes jumps too fast, like with Franken and Biden. If not for that, I might have signed on for her and not Biden. If she does pick up air and soar, I will have no problem voting for her, she's definitely in my top 4. Hell, I'd even vote for Gillibrand or Tulsi in the general, even though they are at the very bottom of my list. Anyone, even my hyper Aussie, is better than drumpf.

[TheCowsCameHome]

23. She's a very good candidate, so are many of the others.

She just needs a little fine tuning.

[sarabelle]

25. We are still a patriarchal society: Controlled by men, for men, and of men.(sexist/misogynistic)

The best candidate lost in 2016 and probably won't even be nominated for 2020.

Dr. Cooper says it best.: https://www.facebook.com/NowThisElection/videos/304720180196526/UzpfSTE3MDYwNTc0NzI6MTAyMDYxODQ1NDU0NDgzNjU/

[lindysalsagal]

56. THIS

We are still sexists, most of us. I do so love Elizabeth.

[LuvLoogie]

26. I think that Biden and Sanders are your givens and can run on message

I think Biden has the better message. But that said, the rest of the candidates just don't have the political bandwidth to broadcast a unique message to the public at large.

Kamala's is a message campaign. I think she recognizes that Democrats as a community were waiting on Joe to see what he was going to do. The campaign did not really start until he jumped in, not really. She knows.

Some of the others are trying to gain attention with specific policy proposals, but the message has to be "defeat the GOP no matter what." Kamala's message is inspirational, upbeat, and inclusive. Joe's is a rally of souls and a call to arms.

Bernie's is an adversarial No Gots and Got Lots message. Liz has essentially the same message. So those two are going to be stuck constantly explaining redistribution of wealth.

But that is essentially the sausage making role of Congress. We are choosing an executive. I think her chance to move up will come in the debates. She and Bernie will probably try to tag team on Joe. The moderators will play that up to bolster their narrative the Democrats are socialists in disarray.

[themaguffin]

27. She is great, but not necessarily the best candidate. Also people need to

look at this from many perspectives.

I love that she a serious policy wonk and would have an excellent, sound approach, but governing is more than that.

It's about being able to herd cats. It's about relationships and so many other things.

[Laelth]

90. Quite true. n/t

-Laelth

[democratisphere]

30. Warren is apparently not the best Presidential candidate as far as voters are concerned.

Warren is invaluable to Democrats in the Senate. Warren is one of our very best!

[Nanjeanne]

31. I don't understand it myself. She is my number 2 very strongly.

[Funtatlaguy]

32. If I was Warrens Campaign Manager, I'd do this:

Sit down with her and discuss branding.

Words associated with her are: teacher, professor 👩?🏫, smart, liberal.
I’d make the most of that.
Run as the smart candidate.
Campaign with slogans like: “Bring brains back”. “This time, the smart one”.

It’s time for truth.
Just the facts, ma’am.

[MichMan]

33. The most qualified candidate often loses

Nixon was more qualified than Kennedy

Ford was more qualified than Carter

Bush I was more qualified than Bill Clinton

Gore was more qualified than Bush II

McCain was more qualified than Obama

Hillary Clinton was more qualified than Trump

What also cannot be overlooked is that;

1) only once in my lifetime has the same party won three elections in a row
2) more often than not, incumbents win a second term.

[left-of-center2012]

34. I find other candidates more inspirational

Plus, she's got 'baggage' which hurts her.

[madville]

35. She just doesn't have "it" plus I vowed not to support any candidate

That screwed over Al Franken.

She has to make a connection with the primary electorate and I just don't see that path materializing for her.

[highplainsdem]

37. I like Warren, but if she were the best candidate, she'd be closer to the top of the polls.

[customerserviceguy]

39. She does get a lot of press

for her policy positions, but almost always, the photo of her accompanying them shows her scowling, not smiling. And not just on Fox News, either.

There's probably some suspicion out there that she has unfairly used Native American status to get where she is. That Texas Bar form where she indicated her race was "American Indian" is particularly damning.

[FBaggins]

42. Obviously because your definition of "best candidate"...

Doesn’t appear to include people wanting to vote for her?

[kcr]

44. Because obviously "poll numbers" are set in stone...

And never ever change?

[FBaggins]

48. Not at all

It just wasn’t part of the OP’s evaluation of “best”.

That might or might not end up being the right way to evaluate that.

[Indygram]

46. On paper she's a great candidate, but she's just not very charismatic and the ability to connect is

not her strong suit. Those are things you can't learn. You either have it or you don't and unfortunately she doesn't have that. She's an amazing thinker, though, and would be absolutely incredible heading up a vast many different government agencies.

I know that's not what those who love her wants to hear, but it's true. That's why she isn't doing better in polls. For as long as there has been widespread media coverage of elections the candidate with the most charisma has always won, no exception. Whoever is nominated must have that unspoken "it" factor.

[marylandblue]

58. Charisma is subjective and is also media driven.

She seems charismatic to me. The media has a different view, and they create the narrative that supports their views. Based on that view, they select clips that support their preconceived notions, which themselves are mired in sexism and anti-intellectualism.

For a candidate the media deems charismatic, like my guy Buttigieg, then the discussion is different. They select clips that make him look more charismatic. They talk about how excited his crowds are, and ask how his charisma is helping him.

And this is the exact reason I am backing Buttigieg. Because he understands how to drive media narratives. He has used this understanding to rise from obscurity. He has studied the media and exploited it more than any other politician except possibly AOC. Warren is charismatic, but she doesn't have the same media savvy. But she could learn it.

[Indygram]

73. I disagree that charisma is subjective

Whether or not you like someone is subjective. Things like charisma, being an extrovert, having star power and the "it" factor (whether you like the person or not) is something someone either has or doesn't have. For instance...most people don't like Hitler...he was horrible. He was also charismatic. I like Warren but she's not charismatic.

[marylandblue]

75. Being an extrovert can be measured on a scale.

But how do you measure a thing called an "it" factor? It's so subjective we can't even give "it" a name. All we can say is that if enough people think you have "it," then you have "it."

[Indygram]

76. Charisma is not subjective

You either are or are not extroverted.

Those are my views and I'm not going to continue to have a circular debate. It's pointless and doesn't change anything. The OP asked why Warren isn't doing better and I gave an honest answer. With how great she sounds on paper if she had the "it" factor then she would be doing a lot better. It is what it is.

[marylandblue]

81. Well, if you want to have a circular debate, you can have it, evidence free.

But extraversion is measured on a scale by personality psychologists all the time:
http://febiassessment.com/test/eysencks-personality-inventory-epi-extroversionintroversion/

You can go back to ignoring facts now. Circular arguments are a lot easier without them.

[forgotmylogin]

110. Extroversion/Introversion is not the same thing, and does not prove "charisma".

I was a stage actor for over a decade (which I hope implies some amount of charisma) and I'm a total introvert. People are often surprised "I thought you were shy!"

If we chose a candidate on "It Factor" alone we may as well just run George Clooney.

[forgotmylogin]

109. Great. You're proposing the American Idol type primary.

Warren is charismatic, she just doesn't talk in media-friendly sound bytes.

Everyone at Trump's rallies probably thinks he's all kinds of "charismatic" so yeah, it is definitely a subjective thing. Just the fact you can say Warren isn't charismatic and I can say she is charismatic proves charisma is subject to opinion.

[calguy]

47. Because maybe she isn't.

[bloom]

50. I hope that the debates work for her.

I think she is clearly the best and also - she has put together a good campaign.

I appreciate what undecided people have noticed - such as the superiority of her website.

I think she is being very smart. I do not count her out at all.

I hope the media does not screw it up again, they probably already are. But I think if they see that many are behind Warren - they might get a clue.

It should help that some of the misogynist media jerks have gotten kicked out - such as Lauer, Rose, etc. Journalists who expect to be considered fair - should be focused on issues of substance instead of stupid shit.

[loves_da_dems]

52. Too nice

She worries too much about policy. She needs to be more emotive, with a touch of mean. Kamala has it.

For me personally, I don't think she's really on board with the Green New Deal. This is the most important issue in our time. AOC has warned us we're all gonna be dead if we don't embrace the GND IMMEDIATELY.

[LakeArenal]

53. Because folks like other candidates more.

[at140]

54. Warren is by far the best

More govt experience, fearless, younger than many others so has much more energy to fix the problems, does not take $$$ from lobbyists and thus not a puppet of lobbyists...GO ELIZABETH!

[frazzled]

95. Ooh, younger!

She turns 70 in less than 2 months. Since I am 9 months younger than Elizabeth, that must make me super young!

[at140]

96. You are just a baby

I am 79 and can walk 18 holes.
People age differently after 40 based on lifestyle.

[frazzled]

97. Yeah, but

“Younger than many others” was an overstatement. She’s younger than Sanders and Biden, by 6 or 7 years, but considerably older than almost all of the other candidates ( e.g. 16 years older than Harris, 21 years older than Booker, 33 years older than Buttigieg, etc.).

It’s great to advocate for your candidate, but when you do, it really is better to be realistic. Touting Warren’s youth just makes people doubt the veracity of anything else you’re trying to say. Just a friendly suggestion.

[at140]

100. The younger candidates have very limited

Experience in DC politics. Experience is a valuable asset, and you can't but it in stores.

[DrToast]

65. Some Warren supporters are so arrogant.

Oh boohoo, not everyone likes her as much as you do. There must be something wrong with them, right?

[Demsrule86]

67. She is a woman and her appeal is in the Northeast mostly.

Women are simply not winning in 20...there is much misogyny.

[delisen]

69. We are still in the "shirtless male"phase of pre-primary

We tend to not acknowledge the sexy male or strong male/beauty contest phase of the early primaries. This qualifying contest is mainly geared toward the male voters among us. It generally consists of the younger male candidate doing a walkabout-along a beach or at a resort area, or even downtown on a very hot summer day. He is shirtless-sometimes he has a t-shirt slung over his shoulder.

A candidate only has to participate, not win the this contest. It's is like the old Miss America pageant. A contestant could win the swimsuit competition and then may or may not go on to win the big prize.

Older males are not expected to participate. For them hair on the head is more important-lots of hair and gray at the temples used to be a marker; Reagan, a Hollywood guy made it OK to use hair dye. Nowadays the all gray look is a marker.

Again although either hair or chest is important-it doesn't determine a primary winner-just declares your claim to power, and holds your in the game.

I think of the options for younger/older candidates as like comparing the artistry of sculpture-which is the better work of art:The Discus Thrower or The Thinker? Who can say? It is like asking which is more important, the chicken or the egg.

Due to custom, and law in certain areas of the nation, female candidates do not participate in this qualifier. There are different qualifiers for women and I expect we will soon start see these but media is dominated by males and they go through all the male qualifying tests first.

It is like what Churchill said about Americans do the right thing, after they have tried everything else first.

As we develop more tools for healthier aging, I expect the upper age limit for entering the shirtless competition will gradually rise along with the rise in age to get social security benefits.

Martin O'Malley was a great entrant in the shirtless competition in 2016 - but his campaign folded. Male media swooned over the " Paul Ryan Shirtless" after he was chosen vp candidate in in 2012 and they actually went back through 6 years of various shirtless Paul photos-along with stories on his workout routine. I could never understand the the excitement and it soon died down.

I am only being a little ironic-politics is always more than politics

[Aaron Pereira]

71. It's a long race and I think she'll wear well with the public in time.

She's not flashy or especially charismatic so I think she'll have to remind primary voters of her depth and ability in debates and public appearances. She's a closer.

[loyalsister]

72. Supporters of all candidates make that argument

I do think her approach is detailed in a way that I think makes her credible in ways other candidates are not. She also has a strong handle of how institutional racism and economic disparities are simultaneously exploited and speaks effectively to it without minimizing the impacts of either.
I think there is also a lot of hand-wringing about having a woman candidate and nostalgia for the most recent Democratic administration.
I'm watching her closely because I think she understands that recovery from Trump is not enough.

[riverine]

74. Warren is anti-business and anti-trade (opposed the TPP for a stupid reason)

Believe it or not the vast majority of Democrats like the company they work for and want to see it succeed.

When Obama went to Silicon Valley he was beloved. Warren would get a cold shoulder and nothing more.

[Humanist_Activist]

79. What's so great about he union-busting Silicon Valley? We need to stop worshiping...

businesses as if they are sacrosanct.

She should get the cold shoulder from "Silicon Valley" because she shouldn't court them at all, the Democratic party should be the party of workers, not capitalists.

[riverine]

86. Who needs unions when the average software engineer makes $149,000/yr with great benefits?

(source = Glassdoor)

Anyway the question was something along the lines of why Senator Warren's campaign was floundering.

There are tens of millions of us Democrats who don't hate corporations.

[Humanist_Activist]

88. Ah, so they don't deserve unions, is that it?

So when there companies demand that they work 80 hours a week, or more, to "change the world" they should just take it? Or even better, quit for another place that "only" demands 60?

All workers who don't control their means of production should be under the protection of unions...all of them.

https://www.wired.com/story/labor-board-backs-startup-engineers-fired-unionizing/

Also, since when do these companies ONLY employ software engineers?

Also, why not hate corporations? They are not your friends, but literally organizations set up to move resources from the majority into the hands of a minority. Seriously, have you ever read one incorporation charter?

We should have NO room in the Democratic party for anti-union thugs, should our candidates grovel at the feet of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos?

[AlexSFCA]

84. Andrew Yang is even more articulate on policy

Presidents don’t legislate, she is not running for senator (=legislator) job.

[Gothmog]

91. Here is some good news

Link to tweet

[BlueWI]

92. Warren doesn't get her due

from a sexist society that favors branding over substance.

In the post-2016 primary environment so far, sexism gets a pass more frequently, and this affects all of the female candidates.

I switched from Warren to Inslee, who are both underappreciated candidates. And, there's still plenty of time till the first primary. Biden fever will subside a bit soon and we can focus more on assessing our many strong candidates.

[BeckyDem]

98. Don't put much stock in polls. Warren will do much better than most expect from her.

Her ability to communicate, her ability to explain her policies, as she did as to why Bezos must sell Whole Foods...per anti-trust laws, that is huge. Most pols do not explain what that means for small businesses to thrive and how a giant can be controlled through regulation.

[Chin music]

101. "She has a plan for that." And great sound bites and slogans!

Haters gonna hate. I love Biden too. All of them are better than the fool who got placed by russia as our 'president'.

[donkeypoofed]

102. The Debates will turn the tides for her

Once she is able to voice her ideas to a national audience, concerning kitchen-table issues that most Americans worry about daily, her polling will go up, a lot.

[comradebillyboy]

103. I too wish my candidate was polling better.

[MineralMan]

104. Apparently, not enough people who are polled share that opinion.

[elfin]

105. Surprisingly to me is that quite a few of my staunch Dem. female friends

say they can't stand her. All women over 70. Not rich, but middle to upper middle. They were reluctant about Hillary but terrified of Bernie so they came around for the election.

When I quiz them, they say they don't like her "manner" or her speech patterns or voice. Such superficial reasons and so disappointing to me.

However, even my own top choices for our nominee are all white males for the electability issue. I want a woman for VP to get our entire electorate more comfortable with women at the very top of the leadership and take over at the next opportunity. Am now with Inslee, but sliding toward Biden.

I suspect that as a group older women gravitate toward male leadership because that is what we grew up with and we have a visceral and negative reaction to the word "socialism" with its negative connotations while we were educated. Don't know. But that is what Warren may be up against with this particular demographic during the primaries.

I want her either in the Senate or Cabinet doing what she does best - working to correct income inequality.

[Fresh_Start]

106. Don't underestimate gender bias.

Also don't underestimate the idiots need to be entertained which seems to apply to politicians but not to professionals.

Would you chose your doctor or attorney or accountant or engineer because they are more entertaining versus have more competence or experience or good outcomes? Yet, we have people who want to like/love their political choice rather than choose someone who would be most likely to be effective.

In every way, women have more challenges than men...

"However, gender-related differences appear to exist in the
audience’s appreciation of both the speakers and their
speeches in terms of perceived persuasiveness, a core
functional component of charisma [7]. For example, in small
group interactions male speakers offering arguments without
evidence have been found to sound more convincing than
female speakers doing the same [19]. Furthermore, male and
female speakers appear to receive positive evaluation of their
competence as speakers for different reasons. Positive
feedback for female speakers mostly focuses on the external
sources that are used to back-up the presented information.
However, male speakers are praised for the structure of the
speech, eye contact, and delivery in addition to the quality of
information [20]. Additionally, significantly more people are
persuaded by male speakers than by female speakers even
though speakers display the same objective level of
competence and all other conditions are identical [20, 21].
Together, these findings show that, given identical
performance, male speakers tend to be regarded as being more
efficient, more structured, and more persuasive than female
speakers [22].

[BlueStater]

108. She's doing a shit-ton better than Jay Inslee.

His record is just as good as hers in my opinion and he's lucky if he can even reach 1% in national polls.

[PBC_Democrat]

111. She's easily in my top five - My only criteria is WINNING

Last edited Wed May 1, 2019, 03:49 PM - Edit history (1)

My scorecard for her:

Competence - 10 -- like another poster said, as competence as Sec Clinton
Experience - 9 -- I'd like to see direct executive experience
Charisma - 5 -- I fear that PBO set the bar crazy high for future candidates
Age - 4 -- I wonder about her ability to attract young voters
Policies - 10 -- I have no doubt she would have rock-solid priorities
Can attract top talent - 10 -- no doubt that the brightest minds in the party would be eager to serve in her cabinet

Not sure if she can win, but would be an amazing President

All in all, She is easily in my top five and I would vote for her without reservation

To apply a baseball saying "If people don't want to come out to the ball park, nobody's gonna stop 'em."