If we believe Elizabeth Warren is the most qualified, we should vote for her. Not someone who we think may have a better chance of winning, which implies others are somehow less informed. Average Americans want to believe their lives will improve. Her proposed plans offer that kind of hope. Rather than waste time and energy worrying about her electabilty, we should encourage the Gates, Buffets, and others, to help her further define how she'll pay for her plans.
Where is Trumps jar? Was it literally overflowing? Why are you deliberately leaving this out? I day deliberate because it is the most obvious question and yet its left out.
2
According to your corn poll photos Bernie Sanders is in the lead by far (as he is with individual donors nationally). But yet you chose to place the image of his "corn jar" at the bottom of your story and made the main image of the article showing the mainstream candidates instead. Then you mention that he is not doing well. Weird. This is after the NYTimes ran an article on individual donors where Bernie was in first by a landslide, and yet you also created a separate map of donors that showed who would be in first "IF Bernie Sanders wasn't in the race." Weird.
1
Both Booker and Klobuchar are and have been polling at about 1% to maybe a soft 3% percent for Booker, yet you lump Buttigieg in with them rather than with the top tier, even though he polls above Harris as often as not and is well ahead of the other two? And he came in second to Biden in the corn poll? Please, let's deal in facts--you are skewing your reporting, and this reader wonders why?
8
Warren is really good. I have a feeling that she may be the next Obama. Shock everyone by winning Iowa and once the myth around her un-electability is broken we find out everyone really likes her.
4
Every now and then the Brits get something right. Their elections seem so much more civilized, if you will, in their brevity.
But, then again, they have gotten similar results of late, so maybe it's not the short campaign time allotted...
1
I see that you removed the *maybe* statement from Buttigieg. I find that interesting. He came in second in the corn poll and you list him behind Klobuchar and Booker who are polling way below him nationally and in Iowa. Doesn't seem like good reporting. Please do better.
16
Interestingly, Biden’s lead over warren in the corn kernel poll is the same as the latest A+ rated Monmouth university poll on 538 for Iowa. Buttegieg’s numbers were indeed the ones notably different from the kernel poll. Sanders, notably, was in single digits in both polls. What this means is anyone’s guess, since the poll at the fAir is anything but scientific. But it’s interesting to ponder.
2
According to the "corn poll," which sampled over 20,000 attendees, Pete Buttigieg is at 16%, ahead of everyone besides Biden. According to every news account I read, he was more enthusiastically received than everyone except Warren. What caused the NYT to conclude from this evidence that Pete Buttigieg is a second tier candidate?
14
Also stunned to see Buttigieg listed as a maybe. There’s enormous energy for mayor Pete. Everyone likes him, and many of us see him as the person likeliest to trounce trumpet
13
I think you are underrating Pete Buttigieg by listing him as a maybe in the second tier of candidates. I can see a maybe for the first tier, but all polls (national and Iowa) have him solidly in 5th place and edging back up. The reports from the Wing Ding dinner last Friday also all note that he was one of the best received candidates.
8
Why