So about two weeks ago, there was a good poll out of Iowa (I think maybe Iowa State U?) that showed some serious Buttimentum, some Sandersmentum, and some real trouble for Biden. And the conventional wisdom was “It’s one poll. Don’t get too excited until we see another poll correlate with it.”
This morning we got that poll with some matching data, and it’s from the NYT/Siena/Upshot polling outfit, the ones who did spectacularly in the 2018 House races.
Game on.
Click Nate Cohn’s tweet, there’s a ton of interesting stuff in the details. (Biden polling at 2% with voters under 45?? Yeeesh.)
MikeJ
6334
On the issues, Iowa Dems seem supportive of progressive agenda items.
But by a modest margin, they say they prefer a more moderate Dem > liberal, someone who reaches out to the GOP > fight for bold progressive agenda, and someone who improves existing health system > MFA
That said, Iowa Dems do narrowly prefer someone who they agree with on the issues > someone who would win, unlike most other polling. And by a wider margin they prefer a candidate who promises fundamental, structural change to America > a return to normal politics in Washington.
Buttigeig seems pretty well positioned for Iowa here, especially if Biden voters start to look for alternatives.
Mayor Pete’s got the biggest ground game and organization in Iowa right now. And his messaging on Medicare as a public option seems to be playing well within this state.
With that said, it’s hard to see a path for Pete to do much beyond Iowa. He’s trailing in New Hampshire, he’s dead in South Carolina, and he may be a non-entity in Nevada as well. He’d need a full-on Biden support collapse nationally, perhaps.
MikeJ
6336
Biden placing 4th in Iowa seems like something that might trigger such a collapse.
I’m a Warren/progressive supporter. My fear this entire time has been that the progressive vote was going to be split between Warren and Bernie, allowing a middling Democrat to nab the nomination.
It’s kind of nice to think that the same dynamic might be playing out between Biden and Pete.
Possibly, but there are aspects of Biden’s constituency that appear lost to Buttigieg too. Older, socially conservative minorities in the Democratic Primary voting bloc are unlikely to decide they’re OK with an openly gay candidate, for instance.
A post-heart attack mini-surge by Sanders certainly seems to have blunted Warren’s momentum in Iowa a bit.
Warren’s plan to pay for MFA is a not-unserious effort. I think you can quibble about costs and funding around the edges, but it isn’t obviously fake or impossible. The real problem will be that the approach creates a lot of potential opponents to the plan — businesses who are ‘penalized’ because they provide more expensive / better insurance than their competitors, small businesses who today provide insurance, and medical service providers who will surely face rate reductions, or at least reductions in the growth of fees for service.
One thing that is interesting is the observation that medical service use will increase by 12% once everyone is covered. I think that’s true, but it isn’t clear that it would be spurious or unnecessary use of health care. If 10% of people don’t have insurance now, they will certainly use more health care under MFA than they do now. And that 10% joining the other 90% in the market would be an increase of around 12%. So arguing that we shouldn’t expand coverage because it will lead to more usage is essentially arguing that it’s better for the rest of us if that 10% stay sick.
I think the biggest question is: if Biden does poorly in both Iowa and New Hampshire (which seems like it very much could happen!) do African American voters in South Carolina drop him like a hot rock? It’s definitely possible. But who will benefit from that? Sanders? Warren? Probably not Buttigieg, but hey, weirder things have happened in politics.
Does hoping for this scenario and a chance to get that support keep Booker and Harris in?
One other thing looking at the Iowa numbers: Amy Klobuchar either needs to light a fire in the next month, or get out. If she’s polling under 5% in her neighboring state, I’m not sure why she’s still going forward at all.
Timex
6342
I think that it’s possible that Pete could make up ground with the black vote. If Biden goes down, and they’re forced to start looking at other candidates more, I think Pete could win them over.
Yet, at the same time, I really do feel like Pete is better suited to be VP at this point.
Sanders is basically fucking over the progressives at this point by not getting out the of race.
If the purpose is to dupe the centrists, then howls from the left would be more effective than any policy specifics.
Menzo
6344
I don’t understand this strategy, because it sounds like the opposite of what conventional wisdom says candidates do.
Isn’t the standard behavior to be an extreme candidate during the primaries, so you form a base, and then tack to the center for the general? I mean didn’t lots of people suggest that Trump would get less extreme once he got nominated?
The idea that you tack to the center during the primaries and then go back to being extreme during the general election season doesn’t make sense.
Timex
6345
No, it’s talking about being more centrist during the general.
Although, it’s worth considering that being extreme in the primary can potentially harm your ability to be more centrist in the general… but maybe not, because voters are apparently idiots.
But the thing is, the leftists need to chill out, and not freak out and then say, “SHE’S NO BETTER THAN THE REPUBLICANS!!!” They need to not throw a tantrum and fuck themselves over.
Well, if someone they trust is nominated, I think there’s plenty of reason to believe they will support that person. So if Warren wins the nomination then tacks to the center in certain places I expect a few howls from the left, but that she will get the support of the Bernies and AOCs who really drive organization and fundraising. There might be a think piece or two taking her to task for changing positions, but unless she really recants a sacred cow I doubt that will amount to much.
The reverse is true of Biden or another centrist nominee. A centrist who promises some liberal stuff to get the nom, then tacks back to the center in the general will get attacked and will lose a lot of the support they might have gotten from the left-wing activists. If you keep nominating the worst choice for the most enthusiastic members of the party, then they keep having an incentive to tell you to fuck off. If you can use the opinions of lean republican voters as a cudgel to try to keep nominees from being too leftist, then leftist thought leaders can also use the opinion of the actually liberal voters in the same way. “Don’t push for the stuff you believe in because some other people might not vote for you” cuts both ways. You can’t keep telling half the party that they need to suck it up and vote for someone preferred by Republicans because their only other choice will be actual Republicans. Why should they give a shit? Why do only centrists get to say, “back our views or you get 4 more years of Trump”?
Frankly, Warren is better off triangulating the voters she needs to target in a general than just going centrist. If the problem is that union members in WI, MI, and PA are worried about MFA, then you craft provisions into it that allay those worries, or you supplement it with another policy they really do want and play that policy up in those states.
Timex
6347
But that’s kind of the point.
You kind of need to just shut the fuck up at that point, and go along with it during the general election. Because no matter what the fuck she does, Trump is going to be so many orders of magnitude worse.
Just shut the fuck up and support whoever the Democratic nominee is, and then worry about pressuring them AFTER the election to do your progressive stuff.
But doesn’t the inverse apply? Pressure them during primary season, when you can influence the platform and the nominee, and then fall the fuck in line for the general no matter who gets the nod.
Timex
6349
Sure, you can totally pressure all you want during the primary. That’s the point of the primary.
(although perhaps consider that you don’t want to force someone to take positions which make them unelectable to the general public)
Matt_W
6350
That’s what the vast majority of progressives have done in the past and will continue to do. There is no crisis here.
Timex
6351
Except that some stayed home in 2016 because Clinton wasn’t cool enough for them, or they voted for Jill Stein, and now we have Trump.
Hopefully folks learned their lesson.
Via the Guardian, here’s Biden’s spokesperson:
”For months, Elizabeth Warren has refused to say if her health care plan would raise taxes on the middle class, and now we know why: because it does. Senator Warren would place a new tax of nearly $9 trillion that will fall on American workers.”
Bedingfield is talking about the portion of Warren’s plan that calls for employers to fund Medicare for all at a level equal to 98% of current employer health care contributions to private plans, and calling that a tax on workers.
