Elizabeth Warren is Likable

She isn't a scold. She isn't shrill. She is actually warm and funny and unpretentious. 

If Elizabeth Warren does well in Iowa and New Hampshire we will get to see a lot of her. 

I predict she will wear well. 

The national polls of Democratic candidates are worse than worthless. They are measuring the ill-formed impressions of people who know almost nothing. 

A pollster could ask the general public what they think of the ball handling skills of bench players on the Milwaukee Bucks and possibly get answers if they probed with "well, which way do you lean?" They would get responses, which could be compiled, then published, called data.

It isn't data. It is garbage. Which airline has more comfortable seats, Philippines Air or Malaysia Air? Who knows??

State polls in New Hampshire and Iowa are a bit better now. Candidates have been criss-crossing the states, holding town meetings, getting interviewed in the media, getting exposure. 

A few people are different enough that voters can keep them straight. Biden and Sanders came to the game as known quantities. Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg are differentiated enough that more people can keep them straight. We do better to look at the positioning of the candidates and their presentation appeal than we do to look at current polls. Quality will out.

Media savvy, not government savvy.

I will reiterate two presumptions held by this blog.

     1. Running for office and serving as president now puts an enormous premium on ability to manage media communications. It is a test of celebrity management, not the ability to run government.  Washington Post analyst Dan Balz just wrote the same thing:  Click  

Voters are looking for indications of character and personality. This elevates brand positioning and presentation over governmental experience. Power has moved from big dollar bundlers and party leaders of the past.

It is a new era. 

Republican voters wanted an ass-kicker, who would appoint conservative judges, and Trump was the guy. A lot of Democrats and Independents didn't like or trust Hillary, and she wasn't particularly engaging or appealing. Result: Trump got elected.

Click: Iowa Starting Line

     2. Voters will know maybe seven things about a candidate at the time they cast a vote, and they will draw inferences from those seven things about character. At the time most people are polled now, people know fewer than seven things for most candidates. That is why it is garbage.

Some will know gender, approximate age, current occupation, and have an impression about what they sound like, and how they are positioned on maybe one point of policy.  [Stop. Reader test for Democrats: How many things do you know for sure about Amy Klobuchar. Take a moment to list them. No Googling.  For Republicans, your test: William Weld was a Vice Presidential candidate in 2016, and is now a Republican candidate rivaling Trump. List seven things you know about this candidate.]

My presumption is that most readers will struggle with the test.

Current polls show Elizabeth Warren scores low on "likability." This is particularly evident in national polls. I think there is a reason for this, and the reason is transitory and fixable. What some people know is that she is a 69 year old female attorney, and a Massachusetts senator. They know she did something-or-other regarding a DNA test and she has just a little Indian blood and that Trump teases her about being a fraud: Pocahontas.

That is about four things. Nothing particularly good.

People have other choices, so they take them. They know Sanders and Biden. Bernie supporters understand that Warren is the closest alternative policy rival to Bernie, so many shun her to make room for the genuine article. A quarter of Bernie supporters tell pollsters they won't vote for Warren and would vote for Trump instead. I don't think that will persist, although if it does it would be fatal.

There are two candidates in the race who could consolidate Democratic voters. Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.  I call them the Type O-negative candidates, the Universal Donors.

One will be the nominee, I predict.  

Warren is the universal donor on policy. She is approximately Bernie-compatible on policy, but does not carry the burdens Sanders has regarding "socialism" and breaking the system.  She says the whole system is rigged: the political system with its money, the financial system with predatory banks, and the internet and telecommunications system, with monopoly power. It is the establishment/populist message. O-negative.

(Harris is also O-negative, but for reasons of identity, not policy. Harris is a woman, a person of color, and has a law enforcement background. She is married to a white guy, but attended Howard University. She is black-enough, law- enforcement-enough, credentialed-enough.)

Both candidates now present themselves as tough scrappy fighters. Whether that will stand up to the test of time and events is unclear, but each has the potential for showing they have the right stuff.

I watched Elizabeth Warren in New Hampshire. Her stump speech is engaging and self-effacing. She doesn't sound like Harvard. She sounds like an Oklahoma working class girl who made good. 

She said her goal in college was to be a teacher, her highest aspiration.

She identifies with the people on the outside looking in. The system is rigged, she says. She got knocked down. Nevertheless, she persisted.

She smiled. She seemed nice. But, like Trump, she is angry about something. In her case it is injustice and a rigged system, and Trump is part of the problem. 

I have seen her act--her schtick--twice. It has appeal. People in New Hampshire and Iowa are becoming familiar with this act, with this version of Elizabeth Warren. My sense is that she will wear well. 

She will emerge out of Iowa and New Hampshire as the electable alternative to Sanders.

Readers can decide. Here are five minutes of Warren.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHSfT7B0LUY&app=desktop    

"I grew up, born and raised, in Oklahoma.  I have three older brothers. I was what used to be known as the 'late in life baby.' My mother used to call me 'The surprise!'  [Audience laughs.] All three of my older brothers went off to join the military. . . . '