Shock poll: Warren leads Clinton in Iowa, N.H.

[mystery-ak]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/shock-poll-warren-leads-clinton-in-iowa-n.h./article/2560098

Shock poll: Warren leads Clinton in Iowa, N.H.
By Paul Bedard | February 11, 2015 | 11:32 am

Populist groups cheering "Run Warren Run," today released 2016 election polls from Iowa and New Hampshire showing Sen. Elizabeth Warren ahead of dominant Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The YouGov poll of likely Democratic voters for MoveOn.org and Democracy for America also found that 79 percent want Warren and majorities support her anti-Wall Street positions.

Warren has said she doesn't plan to challenge Clinton, though several others have indicated that they are looking at a bid, including Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

The poll of 400 conducted Jan. 30 to Feb. 5 put Warren ahead of Clinton in Iowa, 31 percent to 24 percent. In New Hampshire, her lead is 30 percent to 27 percent.

The groups cautioned that the poll mostly shows that voters are extremely open to her candidacy rather than her being a Clinton killer. They hope to use the poll to encourage Warren to change her position and get into the race.

The poll analysis said: "The results show that, after likely caucus goers and primary voters learn about Elizabeth Warren’s biography and issue positions, not only do a stunning 79 percent say they want her to run, but, in both states, Warren ends up leading all other potential Democratic candidates in a head-to-head ballot question."

Key findings:

— Virtually all likely primary voters and caucusgoers indicate support for a contested race, with 98 percent agreeing that a competitive primary is good for the party, candidates and voters.



— When they are informed about Warren’s biography and issue positions, 79 percent of respondents say they would like her to run for president in 2016.

— After respondents hear about Warren’s positions and biography, without any negative information provided about other candidates, Elizabeth Warren leads all other candidates for the nomination in both states: 31 percent to 24 percent over Hillary Clinton in Iowa (with other potential candidates further behind) and 30 percent to 27 percent in New Hampshire.

The full results are here.

[Free Vulcan]

If this poll is even in the ballpark, Hillaryland is under an earthquake watch.

[truth_seeker]

A Warren candidacy would follow in the tradition set earlier by George McGovern and Michael Dukakis, and by Baraq Hussein Obama.

Hopefully contemporary conservatism can rediscover their common sense bearings, and defeat Warren like they did McGovern and Dukakis.

The strategy of the left will be a version of populism, encompassing progressive-liberalism fully. Obama did it, and Warren could do it, too.

It won't work to insult some voters, as Reagan Romney did with his 47% remarks. The fatal flaw of that insult, was lumping together multi-generational welfare takers, with good people who worked all their lives, served in the military, and end up with social security and Medicare.

Any real conservative that thinks insulting certain voter groups is the path to victory is misinformed.

[musiclady]

A Warren candidacy would follow in the tradition set earlier by George McGovern and Michael Dukakis, and by Baraq Hussein Obama.

Hopefully contemporary conservatism can rediscover their common sense bearings, and defeat Warren like they did McGovern and Dukakis.

The strategy of the left will be a version of populism, encompassing progressive-liberalism fully. Obama did it, and Warren could do it, too.

It won't work to insult some voters, as Reagan did with his 47% remarks. The fatal flaw of that insult, was lumping together multi-generational welfare takers, with good people who worked all their lives, served in the military, and end up with social security and Medicare.

Any real conservative that thinks insulting certain voter groups is the path to victory is misinformed.

Romney.   

[truth_seeker]

Romney.   

Obviously I made a grievous mistake, and readily admit it offering no excuse. I am sorry and bear full responsibility.

Of course I meant Romney, but was thinking about how successful Reagan was to deliver his message without distancing himself from voter groups.

[Carling]

A Warren candidacy would follow in the tradition set earlier by George McGovern and Michael Dukakis, and by Baraq Hussein Obama.

Hopefully contemporary conservatism can rediscover their common sense bearings, and defeat Warren like they did McGovern and Dukakis.

The strategy of the left will be a version of populism, encompassing progressive-liberalism fully. Obama did it, and Warren could do it, too.

It won't work to insult some voters, as Reagan did with his 47% remarks. The fatal flaw of that insult, was lumping together multi-generational welfare takers, with good people who worked all their lives, served in the military, and end up with social security and Medicare.

Any real conservative that thinks insulting certain voter groups is the path to victory is misinformed.

I don't think Warren can run on the Obama strategy.  After 8 years of platitudes, voters are going to want some substance.  I think a Scott Walker or Rick Perry offer a striking contrast to Fauxcahontas, who has won exactly one election in her life, and did it in a state that didn't offer much of a challenge for her to win. 

[truth_seeker]

I don't think Warren can run on the Obama strategy.  After 8 years of platitudes, voters are going to want some substance.  I think a Scott Walker or Rick Perry offer a striking contrast to Fauxcahontas, who has won exactly one election in her life, and did it in a state that didn't offer much of a challenge for her to win.

And I'm hopeful that a re-energized, pragmatic and intelligent conservative movement can send her to a defeat as devastating, as the one McGovern and Dukakis found at the end of their campaign trails.

The gift that Obama has given to pragmatic conservatism is the near elimination of "centrist" democrats.

If elections are won with independents, then the Republicans should have an advantage, if they figure out how to wisely use it.

But my careful study of the characteristics of independents is this: they are clearly more conservative fiscally, but that is not the case with social issues.

[flowers]

I don't understand how this is a 'shock' poll? Hillary isn't left wing enough for the yutes.  Hillary has way to much baggage, in more ways than one. 

[musiclady]

Obviously I made a grievous mistake, and readily admit it offering no excuse. I am sorry and bear full responsibility.

Of course I meant Romney, but was thinking about how successful Reagan was to deliver his message without distancing himself from voter groups.

I knew you knew.  ^-^

And yes, Reagan was a master at pulling people into his political philosophy without pushing others away.  (Except, of course, those who were already there!)

[aligncare]

This seems to support what I and Rush have been saying. Hillary is no threat. She's yesterday's news. She's old looking with old ideas and carrying around a lot of old baggage. The GOP should focus on other potential 'rat candidates.

[Right_in_Virginia]

This seems to support what I and Rush have been saying. Hillary is no threat. She's yesterday's news. She's old looking with old ideas and carrying around a lot of old baggage. The GOP should focus on other potential 'rat candidates.

True...but I'd like the GOP to focus on potential Republican candidates other than the leftovers from 2012 and Jeb Bush.

[truth_seeker]

True...but I'd like the GOP to focus on potential Republican candidates other than the leftovers from 2012 and Jeb Bush.

How about focusing on those most able to win?

Personally I'd like to see a grass roots effort, to tell a lot of them to get the F*** off the stage, and quit trying to make money off this thing, over and over.

Maybe

www.pleasegetoffthegopstage.com

[Relic]

I don't think Warren can run on the Obama strategy.  After 8 years of platitudes, voters are going to want some substance.  I think a Scott Walker or Rick Perry offer a striking contrast to Fauxcahontas, who has won exactly one election in her life, and did it in a state that didn't offer much of a challenge for her to win.

I think you overestimate Americans. I've been saying it will be Warren for a long time now. It will be Warren, and she will win. First, she is a she. That's the most important thing about Warren. Conservative women will vote for "the first woman president". Second, Warren is all in on the eat the rich campaign. That resonates with Americans.

That's what I see.

[alicewonders]

This seems to support what I and Rush have been saying. Hillary is no threat. She's yesterday's news. She's old looking with old ideas and carrying around a lot of old baggage. The GOP should focus on other potential 'rat candidates.

Hillary's old bags have bags! 

[Carling]

I think you overestimate Americans. I've been saying it will be Warren for a long time now. It will be Warren, and she will win. First, she is a she. That's the most important thing about Warren. Conservative women will vote for "the first woman president". Second, Warren is all in on the eat the rich campaign. That resonates with Americans.

That's what I see.

Warren is woefully short on experience outside of academia.  I don't think she'll even run.  Listening to her stammer through a foreign policy in the Dem primaries would turn off a lot of moderate Dem voters.  She's the Howard Dean of 2016, except she hasn't even started organizing a grassroots campaign, let alone a real campaign team.

[Relic]

Warren is woefully short on experience outside of academia.  I don't think she'll even run.  Listening to her stammer through a foreign policy in the Dem primaries would turn off a lot of moderate Dem voters.  She's the Howard Dean of 2016, except she hasn't even started organizing a grassroots campaign, let alone a real campaign team.

The media is already soiling their underthings thinking about her run. It's going to happen.

I remember someone running in 2008 with not enough experience, and an inability to speak off prompter.

[musiclady]

I think you overestimate Americans. I've been saying it will be Warren for a long time now. It will be Warren, and she will win. First, she is a she. That's the most important thing about Warren. Conservative women will vote for "the first woman president". Second, Warren is all in on the eat the rich campaign. That resonates with Americans.

That's what I see.

Not a single chance in HADES will any legitimate conservative woman vote for Pocahontas.

Good grief!  Give us a little credit, will you???

[alicewonders]

Not a single chance in HADES will any legitimate conservative woman vote for Pocahontas.

Good grief!  Give us a little credit, will you???

For real!

[musiclady]

For real!

 

[Relic]

Not a single chance in HADES will any legitimate conservative woman vote for Pocahontas.

Good grief!  Give us a little credit, will you???

Lots of women who call themselves conservative will vote Warren.

What they do is no reflection on you.

[musiclady]

Lots of women who call themselves conservative will vote Warren.

What they do is no reflection on you.

The operative words' being "call themselves."

No actual conservative woman will vote for a leftist moron just because she's female.

[Fishrrman]

musiclady wrote:
[[ Not a single chance in HADES will any legitimate conservative woman vote for Pocahontas.
Good grief!  Give us a little credit, will you??? ]]

Condi Rice?
Peggy Noonan?

Pay no attention, just thinkin' outloud.....

[truth_seeker]

Not a single chance in HADES will any legitimate conservative woman vote for Pocahontas.

Good grief!  Give us a little credit, will you???

1. Define "legitimate" conservative.

2. What percent of the electorate do you think is comprised of "legitimate" conservatives, both male and female.

I believe women in general, democrat, independent, and even "not legitimate" Republicans would vote for a first woman President, Hillary,  Elizabeth or otherwise.

There were some black Republicans who voted for Obama, race over sense.

[Dexter]

The operative words' being "call themselves."

No actual conservative woman will vote for a leftist moron just because she's female.

That's irrelevant; the salient point is that a woman running for the Democrats will cut into the number of women voting conservative.

[musiclady]

musiclady wrote:
[[ Not a single chance in HADES will any legitimate conservative woman vote for Pocahontas.
Good grief!  Give us a little credit, will you??? ]]

Condi Rice?
Peggy Noonan?

Pay no attention, just thinkin' outloud.....

I said conservative, not Republican.

(There's a difference........ unless one is a conservative Republican like moi!)