Latest Monmouth poll for Iowa has him: First overall - 22% Highest net favorability - +63% Popular option (15% - second highest behind Warren) for people if their primary candidate was not viable 17% have no opinion or haven't heard of him - highest amongst top 4 candidates Stunning numbers from an A+ rated poll
I'm pretty convinced Pete will win Iowa and NH. I'm just not sure what happens from there with his lack of minority support - it depends on whether there's something inherent to him (his issues in South Bend, etc), or if it's just a lack of people knowing anything about him. But he's the closest thing to an Obama type candidate in this election. Warren and Bernie are very much "change" candidates, but more anger than hope. Biden and the others don't excite anyone.
new poll has Mayor Pete surging in New Hampshire https://www.wmur.com/article/saint-...-point-lead-over-biden-warren-in-nh/29849189#
And this is how we reinforce misogyny and gender inequity. Not picking on you personally. But this is a common theme, with the way female candidate s are covered. She (smartly) channels populist anger which powers Trump to take on inequality, probably the defining issue of our time. And in a constructive good faith way, not a rapacious, white supremacist criminal way. I guess you could call her the candidate of anger, but "I have a plan for that" and selfies don't exactly jibe with that. Granted her trolling the dipshit whiney billionaires last week was not exactly matronly. But why should it be? We wouldn't expect a male candidate to back down either. An angry woman is something dangerous. And can be dismissed. It's the same **** Hilary had to deal with. They are damned if they do and if they don't.
Exactly. Calling Warren a candidate of anger is BS double standard. She goes out of her way to be personable and gives opponents a chance to say their piece. The fact that she won't let people get away with their excuses doesn't make her angry. A male doing that would be described as strong and tough.
Warren embraces her anger and talks about how she is angry - is she misogynous to herself? Anger just doesn't play well with Democrats in primaries. Who is the last anger-driven candidate who won a Democratic primary? That applies to both men and women, which is why Bernie has a ceiling too. In primaries, Democrats always have and always will fall in love with optimism - "hope & change". Republicans are the opposite - they react more to anger and fear in their primaries. I'd argue this is the natural tendency of liberals (striving for change/progress/improvement) and conservatives (avoiding change, preferring certainty, etc). Warren benefits in the primary from being progressive, but the embrace of anger hurts her. Same with Bernie. The opposite would be true, in both cases, in the general election. It has nothing to do with gender - angry men don't fare well in Dem primaries either.
lol, angry Red Faced Old America rabble got Trump elected, but anger from the "Populist Left" is terrible. What Jedi Mind****ery have we lived under to make urban driven populism (universal healthcare, high cap corporate teardowns, civil rights reforn) "cancerous" while rural driven populism (exclusionist policies through states rights, spiteful immigration policies, government corruption as validation of libertarianism, isolationism in trade and statecraft) is considered "cathartic" or some portent/warning from the flyover states. Let's call it what it is. Independents and moderates either feel left out or taken down a peg through Warren or Sanders policies. When critics complain about "constituents voting against their interests," it plays into that and comes off patronizing. Liberals are terrible at framing arguments to people who neither have spent or want to spend more than 10 minutes to seriously think about these things. It's like they've never given an elevator pitch in their sheltered lives. But they recognize that, and hey...a billionaire like Bloomberg has probably heard tons of elevator pitches in his life, so he must be a viable candidate! It's incredible not only for the speaker to be tone deaf but also for the audience to be as well...but that's life in a big tent.
Seriously this is a Ben Shapiro level argument. An angry woman is not treated the same as an angry man, and we all know this. It's like describing a black person as articulate. Since Barack Obama reads books and makes compelling speeches isn't he insulting himself? Warren made her money as a policy person. This is what fueled her rise in the past few months. If you wanted to be lazy and associate a few words or images, it would be something like plans and earnestly discussing them in good faith. And yes those plans seek to address the injustice of the failing system we currently have...and if it doesn't make you a bit angry, well there's always Schultz 2020. But she becomes a real threat to take power, she becomes a shrill angry lady, who needs that? and hey how about this nice guy over here with McKinsey cred, say the elites and the Pluto's solemnly nod and hey how about some pieces in Politico and the NYT and...and...
“Such a nasty woman.” - Trump 2016 There is a double standard at play and even some of the more sophisticated polling spells it out and shows the bias Warren faces. The question is can she win... not whether it is fair or not.
This is just semantics. It's not about tone - I'm not talking about her being "shrill" or whatever nonsense. Her campaign is fueled by anger - at the system, at specific groups of people (tech, banks, insurance, billionaires, etc). These were strategic decisions she made. Bernie made the same ones. Of course they aren't - women are certainly held to different standards. But that doesn't change the fact hat anger doesn't play for men *or* women in a Democratic primary. Dems always bow towards hope and change and optimism (and youth, really) - it's just in their nature, and you can see it play out exactly the same in past primaries where it was all men. Right now, it's a crutch being used to pre-emptively blame Warren's fall (though she hasn't really fallen yet) while ignoring the strategic choices she's made. All the opposite things are true in the GOP, in general - I'm painting with broad strokes obviously. As an example, look at Sarah Palin. She was angry, "shrill", etc - but the GOP loved her, because that stuff plays well to GOP primary voters. Same with Trump and Cruz. Rubio, Jeb, Kasich, etc were all the optimistic/hopeful/less-angry guys. A Democratic Sarah Palin would be revolting in the Dem primaries because different styles appeal to the different parties. She made a strategic decision - as did Bernie - to lean into anger at the system and use that to appeal to the progressive left that are also angry. It's not about tone - it's about presentation of policy: insurers are bad guys, billionaires are bad guys, banks are bad guys, we need to take them all down, etc. But the problem is that it alienates the generally non-angry middle, and people underestimate how big a part of the Dem party this is. For Warren, her intelligence and progressivism are what make her stand out and what fueled her rise. But her anger - or if you don't like that word, go with combative approach to policy - isn't a winning strategy. Warren's strategy might have worked in those unique years like 2008 when anger legitimately prevailed across the board due to the economic collapse, but the strategic mistake she's making now is that much of the country simply isn't really that angry. They don't like Trump *personally* and don't like tone/approach to leadership, but the economy is good, jobs are good, etc. People don't want their lives thrown into uncertainty.
Will America vote for a gay man? That is the question. Lots of people struggle with voting for women - what is the viewpoint of a guy person? I feel this election is too important to take big risks, I like Pete a lot, but if running him loses the election due to bias - I would rather take a safer choice to ensure the Dems win. DD
Right. The anger is targeted and that is different than the label of 'angry woman'. Anger helped the current president win the election last time. It isn't necessarily a bad strategy to have targeted anger especially in the rust belt and places hit hardest by an economic downturn.
Fair enough - change my terms to "targeted anger" if needed. I didn't make clear enough that I wasn't talking as much about tone as campaign stratengy. And I'm not arguing it will hurt her in the general election. I'm speaking specifically to the Democratic primaries. Even in the rust belt, in the Democratic primaries, I think "hope" will win out over "targeted anger".
I have no issue with women or women candidates and I think Angry is good descriptor of her as a candidate. Her trolling Billionaires is very good example of that she is trying to fuel her candidacy on the hatred of billionaires and just because you are a billionaire does not make you evil IMO. Yes its very Trump like and yet you seem to think that's ok? How is that?
