Don’t you think?
From her well-timed rollout to her swing through the South to her substantive, but clear, policy ideas, Warren is knocking it out of the park.
That’s not to say that she will win, or even ought to (though I will not gripe if she does).
She’s a woman and is already not getting the press coverage she deserves; she might yet eat chicken the wrong way someplace; etc.
Also, obviously, her campaign strategy would not work for the “keep it vague and positive” lane of Rorschach wannabees–they last thing they want it to be pinned down on anything, lest they lose their “magical” qualities.
(My objection to this is that anyone who is elected with such a non-specific non-mandate will arrive in Washington powerless to effect the changes that are so urgently needed today. But that’s not to say it will not carry the day—indeed, my fear is that it will.)
I just think she is running a very good campaign that plays to her considerable strengths.
Christopher says
At the moment she is my second choice to the yet-undeclared Biden, but I like that she has come out with a lot of policy specifics.
Trickle up says
Although I confess I like her (can’t you tell)? I have not made up my mind. I do admire how she is handling herself and her campaign.
I doubt I’ll opt for Biden, but if he runs as good a campaign I will admire that as well.
petr says
She is, decidedly, running the most substantive campaign: which substance (I daresay you and I agree) should form the “best” campaign. Unfortunately so called ‘savvy travellers’ are schizophrenic in the extreme: even now political “journalists” are using words like ‘lagging’ and ‘stalled’ based upon momentary snapshots and perceived… I don’t know what they perceive; yet so often I’ve seen them do a complete turnabout once the votes are in and call whomever wins the ‘best campaign.’
Let us have a contest! My prediction for the inevitable food-a-kerfuffle: stealing precious moment to take a private date with her husband a stalking paparazzi-wannabe snaps a shot of her with something that looks suspiciously like Manhattan Chowder. Heads esplode. Markets tumble. Tucker Carlson is hospitalized for acute priapism.
It turns out to be a rather ordinary Gazpacho.
As has been noted before: so called ‘electability’ isn’t about what J Random Voter thinks about a candidate but what J Random Voter thinks other voters think about a candidate… and, in this respect, the media, well, mediates. I wish they would take this responsibility just a *wee* bit more seriously…
Trickle up says
The reason I admire her campaign is not so much that it is substantive but that she is using that substance to communicate an urgent and coherent message.
it’s not a series of nine-point plans but specific programs targeted at problems that people understand. Each tells a part of a story about where we are and what can be done that reenforces the other parts.
I am not saying that Gazpachogate won’t happen, and I am certainly not declaring her the winner. But nobody else is doing what she is doing.
johntmay says
According to the Reddit crowd, she’s got the most comprehensive policies of any other Democratic contender, and I have to agree. I was a former Bernie supporter, but to quote Ross Perot, when I “look under the hood” of all the campaigns, Warren clearly has the most horsepower.
Her only barrier, which a formidable one, is that she is (in my estimation) the one candidate that the .01% fears the most and the .o1% controls the media, Bernie and others are able to point to the .01% as the antagonist in our lives, but Warren tells us how they are screwing us and what she will do to stop it in concrete terms.
sabutai says
The two best campaigns right now are Harris and Warren. You know why? Because you’re not reading about them.
Pity poor Buttigieg, who has to pretend to be happy that he’s the hot thing of the moment. Which means come September, he’ll be an also-ran. (See Beto). He’s about the be crowded out by Biden’s announcement, and will never get that momentum and attention back. Meanwhile, Harris and Warren are building up operations and testing out approaches. Booker (ugh) is doing the same.
You don’t want to catch fire until Columbus Day, and even that’s early.
jconway says
I’ll echo sabutai’s take on Harris. She seems to be consolidating the anti-Bernie lane of party elites while also visibly co-signing onto his policy agenda. It is a shrewd and smart strategy. The slow collapse of Booker’s campaign will doubtlessly help her with those same elites and possibly with black voters. I also think her issues with the base on criminal justice will only help her in the general election. I think she looks like a 3rd or 4th place, but is really running 2nd.
I disagree on Warren. She is a candidate without a constituency. The left wing of the party is solidly behind Bernie, not Warren. The remaining 2/3’rds of the party is split between Biden or wanting the next fresh face. Her burn rate to fundraising ratio is also reminiscent of Scott Walker’s 2016 efforts. You want boots on the ground in Iowa and NH (something Biden’s campaign conspicuously lacks), but you also don’t want to be overstaffed this early in the cycle as she is. Either she will need to fire people, which leads to bad headlines, back out of her strict fundraising limits, or otherwise make changes. It’s possible she rebounds like McCain did in 2008, but she would need to have a major issue break her way like the surge did.
My impression when I met Pete is that he did have a deer in the headlights look when he walked into Gibsons in Concord. I was the first hand in the receiving line and he clearly did not expect a crowd that big. Apparently it drew five times the number that Gillibrand and Booker did. He gave a great speech and the crowd was really fired up about him. I like him a lot, and he would be my first choice in a ranked choice primary. I expect the race will probably be down to Bernie, Biden, and Harris by the time it comes to our shores and I’ll have a tough decision to make. If Pete is still viable at that point, he probably has the edge on my vote.