Hi’.
So for those who follow the 538 tracker, you noted the all too new YouGov one, covering December 7-10. The foreigner I am certainly did.
Long story short that new poll shows Elizabeth Warren at 21%.
So I know a single poll isn’t enough, but I’ve been like a little kid seeing a present and having to wait ‘til Christmas to open it. Since November 20-24, Warren had fallen from ~24-27% to 14-17%, and while polls are just an estimated snapshot of the present, it built the narrative both of her downfall and of M4A being politically toxic. She fell because of M4A, is the word out there. And the push was for her to abandon it, with the NYT pretty much reporting as much.
In reality, though (well, in my opinion, rather), it’s about “electability”.
Most of Warren’s rise was slow and steady, or what incremental should be about, and those remaining 14-17% proved how strong the support she earned during that time really is. She pushed further past 20% and suddenly the numbers surged, up to 28% possibly, competing directly with Biden even though Sanders was still at 14-16%. What happened? Centrists. People who just want to beat Trump, and who would be mighty happy with Warren if she can do it. Her breaking 20% was pretty much the signal for those people to support her, creating the self-fulfilling prophecy, aka virtuous cycle underdogs are depending on.
But that 10% support is far weaker, relying purely on her performing well. I know it’s linked to her botched answer to “how to pay for M4A” (it lowers costs… sigh) but I’m not sure who blinked first. Anyway, this event (or other circumstances) made her lose a bit of ground and this, in turn, gave the impression that she was “unelectable”. Hence the sudden fall.
This is my personal narrative on the events, that the “electable” crowd came and went.
And this is why I am so impatient for polls to confirm what this YouGov one just showed. It might be Harris dropping, or her renewed efforts, or just inertia being in her favor really — by default she was slowly and steadily rising anyway — but whatever the reason, after roughly 20 days of desert crossing she might be breaking 20%. Again. Proving for the third time just what formidable candidate she is. If confirmed, that news should make her “electable” again, and drive the crowd back to her.
This can also be a fluke, and I wouldn’t be surprised by another week or two of stagnating polls (which would mean it’s not just Harris leaving the race, mind you). There is also Klobuchar making a push and that would be good news for all, she does deserve a shot. And of course there is Buttigieg who is still holding at 9-12% — credit to him, I didn’t think he would hold — with those new supporters possibly not wanting to switch again. But this poll is also what I expected would happen for Warren, so I’m jumping the gun.
And I am also jumping the gun for another reason.
Just how many times does a candidate need to prove herself? She started the race as “Pocahontas”, as low in the polls as could be. She broke 10%. She broke 20%. If she breaks 20% again, making a comeback the media played as unlikely, despite (or glad to) M4A, a comeback Harris eventually couldn’t achieve, doesn’t that make her the most formidable warrior out of the entire remaining field? Should people really stick to State polls when they have such a powerful weapon available in the Democratic arsenal?
I would argue this should be the actual definition of electable.