What happened to Elizabeth Warren? She positioned fourth in the New Hampshire Primary. She positioned third in the Iowa debacle. She’s gone on a precipitous drop for a woman who is seeking to portray herself as the left-wing variation of Trump. The party’s bedrock is supposedly more left-wing. No, it is—Sanders is now the frontrunner, which affirms the party’s lurch to Lenin. So, with Lie-a-Watha moving Medicare for All, you’d think the progressive Left would no less than offer her a shot to beat Bernie Sanders, right? Nope. She’s tumbling off a cliff, losing liberal voters.
The Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman documented that he considers the NYT/Siena poll exhibiting Warren as an awful candidate to manage off versus Trump as the rotating point for the Warren camp and the start of her decline:
Michael Graham of Inside Sources also followed her decline, in which her support had lowered by 50 percent in New Hampshire prior to Election Day. What’s taking place? Well, he provides good reasons for why Democratic voters would be unwilling to vote for Warren whose healthcare plan could be attractive to the rabid Left but be aware of ‘won’t raise middle-class taxes’ section is bunk. She lied about her heritage. And she comes off an unnatural. He, like Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel, also documented the thing she claimed that could have brought up eyebrows from the modern Left—and that was a “transition period” for her health care plan. It looked like and sounds like an escape hatch, and while in keeping with the hardcore liberal wing of the Democratic Party—it’s not a revolutionary overhaul of the health care system, which is what the far Left wants.
From Strassel’s November 2019 column:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren confessed that she had created a huge, possibly terminal, campaign error—and immediately proceeded to make it more serious. If the Warren presidential bid flops, this will be the moment to indicate.
That admission didn’t come in so many words. It came instead in the form of a major update to Ms. Warren’s Medicare for All plan. The Massachusetts senator now proposes a two-year “transition” period, in which Americans would be able to opt in to Medicare. Put another way, Ms. Warren now calls for the same sort of public option as her “moderate” competitors. She says that she will wait until the third year of her presidency to abolish private insurance.
It’s part of a growing list — her claims of Native American heritage, her debunked story about being fired over a pregnancy, her misleading statements about her children attending public school and her backtracking on Medicare For All — that suggests Warren is willing to say whatever it takes to get elected.
“She started off as a candidate with a strong message: ‘I want to fight for you, I’m going to take on corruption.’ She sounded like someone who knew exactly what she wanted to do,” Democratic strategist Joel Payne told InsideSources.
“Now, she sounds like a candidate who’s still looking for a message, and that’s not good.”
Some Democrats disagree. “I don’t think the Native American thing or these other stories are hurting her. I think she’s got an explanation for all of them,” said Bob Shrum, director of USC’s Center for the Political Future and a veteran of multiple presidential primaries. “I think it’s one thing: Medicare For All.”
That’s a common explanation for Warren’s weakness. Democrats and pundits point to the release of Warren’s poorly-received $52 trillion healthcare plan as the moment her campaign began to founder. “It’s not true that New Hampshire Democrats don’t like Warren,” one senior Democratic Granite State source told InsideSources. “They just hate her Medicare For All plan.”
Well, the plan does eliminate 150+ million private health care plans. That includes millions of union households and working people. I could see why there was a back peddle on the revolutionary overhaul, but now she looks like a less charismatic, robotic version of Hillary Clinton.