I was hoping that Astead Herndon would help me understand Elizabeth Warren’s strategy going forward, but I came away disappointed. The New York Times piece is heavy on observations from interesting people, but the only thing I could really glean as a plan was a dedication to complaining about media treatment.
No one thinks Warren will win in Nevada, although a second or third place finish seems possible. No one thinks Warren will win in South Carolina. I cannot identify any state from Super Tuesday where she’s a likely favorite, and that includes her home state of Massachusetts.
Despite this, Warren could plod ahead provided that she’s consistently reaching the fifteen percent minimum threshold required to win delegates. At least for a while, it’s not so bad to come in second or third place provided that you have something to show for it. The winners of these primaries aren’t doing much to win an outright majority of the delegates by carrying small pluralities and splitting the delegates with other candidates. That could be seen easily in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Pete Buttigieg won 13 delegates in Iowa to Bernie Sanders 12, and they each won nine delegates in New Hampshire. This amounts to about a third (for each of them) of the total delegates so far awarded. That isn’t getting anyone to a majority anytime soon.
Ordinarily, the field would be winnowed, but now Michael Bloomberg is entering to add more choice and more of a split. This could make it harder for Warren to reach the 15 percent plateau, but it also prevents a frontrunner from rolling up big victories that carry a majority of delegates.
For Warren, the only obvious play right now is to find a way to finish above 15 percent so that she’s gaining delegates, and then hope to carry the day at a contested convention. That requires a two-track strategy. First, and most crucially, she must keep herself within eyesight of the front of the pack. The goal of hitting viability in the primaries should get easier after some candidates drop out. Second, she has to position herself as the compromise candidate. It looks like the Sanders and Bloomberg camps are feuding and it’s unlikely to get better. They may become so antagonistic that the conventioneers understand that neither Sanders nor Bloomberg can ever hope to hold each other supporters and some alternative is required.
As of now, Warren is hitting Bloomberg as hard as anyone, and that is consistent with her overall message. She may want to find a way to do that going forward in a way that is less alienating than what is coming from Sanders and his supporters. Her best hope is to be seen as a bridge between Sanders and the rest of the field.
Unfortunately, I don’t see any obvious way for her to tinker with her campaign so that she starts winning primaries, so she should either drop out or adopt a strategy for the long haul with an eye toward the convention.
She is on the way out. I saw a comment where someone asked what she gave up on today. She is now around ten percent in Nevada according to 538 last I looked.
Check what Jon Ralston has to say. Pretty sure he knows more about Nevada than 538.
All Nevada polling is highly unreliable because of the nature of the contest
https://twitter.com/RalstonReports
Warren needs second place or she is done, and I see no other path. She needs the race to change. Second place is enough for a comeback story. But if it’s another third or fourth? What’s the point? The media is already ignoring her and polling Klobuchar in head to heads while not polling Warren (like wtf). It’s fucking absurd. She got screwed by IA fuck ups, but I suspect she needed second there too. The race was lost when she got third in IA. Pete won’t be the nominee, but he’ll have perhaps been the main thing to have stopped Warren.
Perhaps she gets it.
You know, I really don’t get this talk about a “compromise candidate” at a contested convention. It’s not like we elect delegates to negotiate for us. We elect them as proxies for our first-choice candidate. They are not going to the convention with any information about our second and third choices.
I have a lot of reservations about Bernie and his ability to win a general election. But it seems to me that if he gets to the convention with a definite plurality, then we would all be best served by getting behind him as the candidate that has the most legitimate claim to the nom. (I was perhaps made a bit more sanguine about this by the Peter Beinart column in today’s Atlantic, arguing that the polls indicate that Bernie is broadly popular among rank-and-file democrats and thus has as good a chance as anybody to unify the party).
I disagree with this: “It’s not like we elect delegates to negotiate for us. We elect them as proxies for our first-choice candidate.” If no candidate wins on the first ballot, I expect my delegates to negotiate–that’s their role.
I agree that it’s the role of delegates to negotiate and choose a nominee if no candidate has a majority on the first ballot. The challenge is that 1) no Democratic delegate has had to do that since 1952, and 2) delegates are no longer chosen primarily by state party “bosses” who are both used to and skilled at negotiating compromises.
Point taken. I was involved in the overthrow of the bosses and maybe it wasn’t the righteous crusade we thought it was. They were first replaced by ‘opinion leaders’ and now by “influencers”.
Liz needs to convince the black voters who have tried Biden and are now flirting with Bloomberg that she can win the whole enchilada.
Everything turns on that and nothing else matters in the end.
I’m afraid you’re probably right about Warren, Martin. It’s a shame–she’s smart and capable and I’ve paid my dues as a supporter. It’s ironic that, even though they allowed her to effectively demonstrate those qualities, the debates were a disaster in forcing the candidates into the policy weeds.
I understand the value of policy discussion but–let’s keep our eyes on the prize–the most important goal in this election is saving American Democracy. I think the attraction of Bloomberg has been that he’s (albeit deus ex machina) hammering at Trump and pretty effectively. I balk at the idea, however, that only an independent multi-millionaire can save us.
At this point, I’m rooting for–and donating to–Klobuchar. I think Bernie would be a disaster (in the General and in office), Biden may be running out of gas (but has a role to play) and Buttigieg is the mayor of a small city and not ready for the big league.
That’s how I see it–with fingers crossed.
Waiting on Super Tuesday. I wish she had more of an organization in my state, although I understand why she wouldn’t – apart from money. Super Tuesday is make or break. For better or worse, two elderly men are likely to fight it out. The elderly man I will likely end up advocating for (as he can already fund and support a staff) at least can represent the Democrats as something other than a commie party. I get the impression that we really lost an opportunity with Warren. In the meantime, if the elderly candidate I now realistically hope for wins out, at least I can debunk claims that we are a bunch of commies whenever I knock on doors. If the other elderly candidate takes charge? I guess I need to get concealed carry license in my state if I am to volunteer to knock on doors. Even if I campaign for down-ballot candidates, we’re all commies no matter. That thought is depressing.
I don’t think she has to worry about alienating Bloomberg supporters; I don’t get the feeling that anybody genuinely likes him, just his ability to get under Trump’s skin with his generally entertaining attack-ads. Otherwise, all I see are various electability arguments. Sanders is a different story. She’s not doing herself any favors with his supporters by embracing the “bernie bro” narrative currently increasing its stranglehold on the MSM imagination.
“I don’t think she has to worry about alienating Bloomberg supporters.” True.
Is anyone else wondering whether part of what we saw last night was Warren shifting her strategy: if she’s going to be “everyone’s 2nd choice” going into an undecided convention, and emerge as the compromise/unity nominee, then she needs to accomplish a two-step of 1) hitting the 15% threshold to win delegates, and 2) forcing other candidates out of the race.
It’s pretty clear Sanders has a solid base that, barring something completely unexpected, will carry him to the convention. Bloomberg (again, barring something unexpected) has enough money to get to the convention. Warren needs to get to the convention within hailing distance of those two (and/or Biden) so that 1) there’s no first ballot winner, and 2) she’s seen *at that time* as the best potential “unity” candidate (a la Lincoln in 1860, in a wildly different political universe).