Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom Iowa 'Selzer' Poll (A+ rating)

[quote]But the race is far from settled: Just one in five likely Democratic caucusgoers say their minds are made up, while 63% say they could still be persuaded to support a different candidate.

[quote]“The data in this poll seem to suggest the field is narrowing, but my sense is there’s still opportunity aplenty,” Selzer said. “The leaders aren’t all that strong. The universe is not locked in.”

On electability and the progressive-moderate schism:

[quote]Iowa’s likely Democratic caucusgoers say that nominating a candidate who has a strong chance of beating President Donald Trump is more important than nominating someone who shares their positions on major issues. 63% say defeating Trump is more important, and 31% say it’s more important to find someone who aligns with them on the issues. 6% are unsure.

[quote]But what does electability look like to likely Democratic caucusgoers? Asked which of two phrases better fits their definition of the more electable candidate, 74% choose a candidate who can excite new voters and get them to show up, compared to 16% who say it's someone who excites the Democratic base.

[quote]63% say a candidate who takes positions seeking to find common ground with Republicans is more electable than someone who takes positions moving the country to the left (28%).

[quote]57% say a candidate who represents a new generation of leadership is more electable than someone who has a long history of serving in government (28%).

Close race between Warren & Biden.

What's notable is that Bernie has lost a lot of ground compared to where he was against Hillary at this time 4 years ago.

Earlier this summer, there was an article that pointed out that Warren had the largest campaign organization in Iowa. She and Booker were betting that they could make a big dent here and so they were burning through considerable resources in order to make that happen. For Warren, it looks like that might be paying off. For Booker, alas, not so much.

Buttigieg is now spending his money on a huge Iowa ramp-up in an attempt to try to break out of the single-digit doldrums he's currently in. It remains to be seen whether that will pay off.

Buttigieg is ahead of Harris in Iowa and has 9%, so it's possible he could get into double digits in Iowa and can get a Midwest hometown boy bonus.

Sanders recently ordered a shakeup of his Iowa and New Hampshire campaigns at the top. He knew this was coming.

r4 Yes, being early with those $10 million from her senate campaign is clearly paying off. We'll see if Pete's ramp-up bears fruit in the next poll. Booker has a nice organisation there as well, but is burning through too much cash that he doesn't really have.

Harris was heard at a recent event saying "I'll fucking move to Iowa". I assume that means cutting back on the fundraisers and finally doing actual ground work in the state.

“We’re not here today because of famous arches or famous men. In fact, we’re not here because of men at all,”

- Elizabeth Warren

Go fuck yourself you old white, lying, privileged cunt.

Warren shouldn't get too comfortable...

[quote]Among those who say she is their first choice for president, only 12% say their minds are made up. 88% say they could be persuaded to support someone else.

She's never "gotten comfortable," R9, unlike Biden, who studiously avoids the media and public.

r10 He was at the Steak Fry today, wasn't he?

Favorability / unfavorability

^^Biden fifth, Bernie EIGHTH. 😬

Kamala Harris at 6%

Glad to see Biden finally falling in the polls. It's worrisome: the man's been using a teleprompter to deliver his stump speech. That's the basic speech all the pols trot out for most appearances; it's the one he should know by rote. Seriously, what the hell is going on with him?

Biden is just trying his best.

Liz Warren will have the most delegates, but will step aside to run as Clinton's Veep.

[quote]the man's been using a teleprompter to deliver his stump speech

Oof, I did not know that.

Warren/Buttigieg is our ticket.

Jon Stewart fans like Warren.

Everyone likes Warren. She has a 75% approval rating. The next highest, Buttigieg, didn't even crack 70%.

[R18] The photos accompanying articles are generally taken from angles to hide them. But other times they're difficult to disguise.

r21 You say that like it's a disaster. In fact, it's absolutely crazy that someone who's been in the public eye for only five months has second-best favorability. I'd be nervous in your place, not derisive.

Yeah, that's a pretty good favorability rating for Buttigieg.

Kudos to Warren and her supporters. This is excellent news for Pete all around. Thanks for posting, OP!

R23, I'm the Warren/Buttigieg poster from above. I was just pointing out that the next highest person, who just happened to be Buttigieg, hadn't even cracked the 70% mark. Warren outpaces the entire field, by a lot, when it comes to likability and approval ratings. The rest are in the 60s (and anyone below the 60s should drop out tomorrow).

It between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The American people are AMAZING making this two the front-runners. They are the smartest people in the room, and they are trustworthy.

Way to go America!!!!

R26 Keep in mind though that no one has truly started picking apart Warren's polices or record. For some reason, she's been getting a free ride up to now.

I predict the Bernie Bros will now realize what a huge mistake that was, and that they'll begin to turn their evil attention to launching a Warren disinformation/smear campaign. Y'know, something on a par to the one they've been maintaining on Buttigieg since he first announced. Warren's "secret racist past" and "hidden corporate ties" or whatever are soon to be revealed! Hope Warren's ready. :D

R26, this isn't a national poll; it's an Iowa poll. Likability and approval ratings there are specific to Iowa and are demonstrably not applicable to the rest of the country.

[quote]Keep in mind though that no one has truly started picking apart Warren's polices or record. For some reason, she's been getting a free ride up to now.

There's no odd reason.

If Biden stops handing the media golden nuggets of, "Is this man okay?" then someone might turn their attention towards her. It's so much more fun to analyze the man at the top of the totem pole who constantly uses the former President he served under as a shield. His name gets clicks.

However, she's so similar to Sanders, the pair keep getting lumped together with Sanders taking the brunt of the attacks on policy. Other candidates, during the debates even directed comments towards the both of them with Sanders, of course, being the first to jump in and answer.

I'd also say that while all of the candidates have issues in their pasts, (especially in relation to the communities they're trying to appeal to) compared to Biden and Harris she looks like Little Mary Sunshine.

Lie-a-watha.

R30 Are you assuming actual, verifiable facts about her background would be involved? I'm not. Once Bernie's people go into attack mode, anything goes. Their cause is just, so the ends justify the means.

The BernBros won't go after Warren unless Bernie does. They followed his lead with Hillary, not the other way around.

The reason Warren's plans aren't getting picked apart is because they are smart and she's been working on a lot of them for decades. When people try to call her out on something, she counters them with these little things called facts and they are left with nothing.

And, Warren has this very strange thing going on for a politician...the more you get to know her, the more you like her. The more you see her, the more popular she gets. That's what we need to win.

We need less crappy national head-to-head polls and more quality early state polls such as this one.

R27, you mean Democrats made them the front runners. In the general, they will be trounced after they are portrayed by radical socialists who are culturally and politically anathema to Middle America. If you think Hillary was villainized, just see how vicious they will be to WARren and Sanders.

Portrayed as radical socialists

Hillary brought decades of baggage. I know many of you don't want to face this, or just won't be able to get your head around it, but some non-Democratic voters admire Sanders for having the guts to run against establishment favorite Clinton last time.

Warren stands to pick up suburban women in states like Texas.

New NBC poll shows only 41% of voters support Medicare for All, while nearly 2/3 of democrats do.

I'm confident that Elizabeth Warren will backtrack on the get-rid-of-private-insurance thing, and fairly soon. She's much too practical to throw away the election for an unpopular idea.

I think Bernie will continue to support it publicly, but once in office he would immediately throw it out the window because he's not dumb either. Congress would never pass it.

R38, that's not exactly news. It's just a new poll confirming what polls about MFA have said for years now.

R38: Link. It's what a proper lady would do.

NBC poll.

R42 is a proper lady. Thank you.

Biden coming in second in Iowa would be a great showing for him. I’m surprised he’s even that high.

Are you kidding, R44? He's done if he doesn't win Iowa.

Iowa has become was less relevant over time. Demographically it looks nothing like most of the country. It's the South that will decide.

All Biden has going for him is "inevitability". People support him because he's in the top spot and, too lazy to do anything else, they just go along because they want to be on the winning team. If Biden loses Iowa, he's done. If he loses Iowa and New Hampshire, he'll have to drop out. South Carolina won't even matter for him because he'll be too damaged by that point.

Obama came out of nowhere and won Iowa and never looked back. South Carolina will go to whomever wins Iowa because that will cement in their minds that that person is an actual winner. Nevada will go the way Iowa and South Carolina go. After that, the candidate will be chosen and everyone else will be fighting for VP.

Warren/Buttigieg 2020, just watch.

Yeah, pair Warren with a candidate who does even worse with black voters than she does — brilliant.

[quote]I'm confident that Elizabeth Warren will backtrack on the get-rid-of-private-insurance thing, and fairly soon.

It really could cost her the election. She needs to adopt Pete's plan of M4All who want it.

I'm hopeful that she will drop the part of getting rid of all private insurance if she wins the primary, but she needs to pull in the Sanders supporters first.

R48, do you know who didn't have the support of black voters until after winning Iowa?

Barack Obama.

New Monmouth poll (A+) for New Hampshire:

Warren: 27% (+19 from May)

Biden: 25% (-9)

Sanders: 12% (-6)

Buttigieg: 10% (+1)

Harris: 3% (-3)

Booker: 2% (-)

Gabbard: 2% (+2)

Klobuchar: 2% (-)

Steyer: 2% (+2)

Yang: 2% (+1)

O’Rourke: 1% (-1)

Williamson: 1% (+1)

Net favorability from the same poll:

Warren 55

Buttigieg 50

Biden 42

Sanders 35

Harris 31

Booker 31

Klobuchar 22

O'Rourke 14

Gabbard 10

Steyer 10

Yang 5

Castro -7

I think this proves that Beto is pretty much a phenomenon that doesn't go beyond the borders of the State of Texas much.

The biggest loser from that New Hampshire primary poll is Sanders.

He beat Hillary in NH by 20 points in 2016, and now he's in 3rd.

Good numbers for Buttigieg. He has the potential to beat Harris in both Iowa & NH.

With at least a somewhat decent showing in Iowa, and favorables like that, Pete could end up with a really surprising showing in New Hampshire.

Favorability/ unfavorability from the NH poll, if anyone is interested in who has the highest/lowest ones.

Warren 74 / 19

Biden 66 / 24

Buttigieg 62 / 12

Sanders 63 / 28

Harris 54 / 23

Booker 49 / 18

Klobuchar 41 / 19

Beto 40 / 26

Castro 26 / 33

Yang 31 / 26

Steyer 32 / 22

Gabbard 32 / 22

Pete with the lowest unfavorability of the bunch, some of the others and Sanders... oof. So I agree with r54 - this poll must hurt Bernie in particular.

Amazing how the Yang Gang cult can continue to prop up their guy up.

The Yang Gang are mostly bots and trolls. This example happened under a Pete video, but they do this shit to all the other candidates as well. Their online strength will of course never translate into the ground game in early states, but it will carry Yang at least into the November debates and who knows, he might still gain in that winnowed field. Doubt it, though.

The margin of error for Iowa is 4% and 5% for New Hampshire, roughly. Which means this is a Biden v. Warren race in both states now. Giving 5% to any other candidate and reducing the same from Warren and Biden, still has those two in the lead. That's the real takeaway here. This is becoming a two way race.

No, it's not. Read Selzer's words at r1, that's why I posted them. This race is as soft as it gets right now.

This time in 2007, Obama was third in the polls, and he didn't get the lead in Iowa until something like just before the New Year.

When 88% of those who voted for Warren say they could be persuaded to support someone else, you know this is nowhere near settled.

Besides, Biden has been slipping left and right in the highly rated polls. Of course, it's the trend that matters.

R60: I'll assume this is directed at me, despite the lack of R# per DL protocol. And yes it is, dear. Until such time as these numbers change in a way that show a different candidate in the 1st or 2nd position, or the MOE allows them to be statistically tied in 1st or 2nd, this is a 2 way race. Buttigieg is not Obama, there is no Hillary Rodham whom-everyone-hates Clinton running this time, and 2008 is not a normal election to use as a reference.

I have a strong feeling that Warren will be the nominee, especially after the last debate. And sure enough, Biden is dropping to second place in a couple of polls. I’m pleasantly surprised that Buttigieg is moving up a little.

The qualified candidates for the October debates:

Biden

Warren

Sanders

Buttigieg

Harris

ORourke

Booker

Yang

Steyer

Klobuchar

Gabbard

Castro

I just don't think Independents are going to warm-up to Warren turning cartwheels onstage. She tries too hard, and reminds me of Anne Hathaway hosting the Oscars.

R62. Obama election was historic and most people were excited to vote for him. None of the candidate can generate that much excitement.

r66 In your opinion. The Iowa Steak Fry has shown that Warren and Pete supporters are excited and energised aplenty. Their respective favorability numbers demonstrate that as well.

Obama didn't really catch fire until November 2007. Also, everything is "historic", until it isn't anymore. Trump's election was also "historic". I'd be very careful about predicting the future based on past events, after what happened in 2016.

New Quinnipiac National Poll (A-)

Warren 27 (+8)

Biden 25 (-7)

Sanders 16 (+1)

Buttigieg 7 (+2)

Harris 3 (-4)

Yang, Klobuchar, Castro, O'Rourke 2

From the same poll: 63% may change their mind, that rises to 68% of Warren's supporters, as against only 46% of Biden's.

Interesting. So Warren's rise in the state polls is now confirmed by a national poll. Even with the valid disclaimer noted by r69, she's got to be happy with where she is now. The counter-argument to the note about changing their minds is that Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said by 70-18 percent that they would be excited if Warren were to become the nominee. The numbers for Biden and Sanders are 56-35 and 55-38, respectively. Noteworthy there is that Biden beats Sanders in that metric, although not by much.

Another new poll, from Emerson:

Biden - 25% (-6)

Warren - 23% (+8)

Sanders - 22% (-2)

Yang - 8% (+4)

Buttigieg - 6% (+3)

Harris - 4% (-6)

Booker and Castro at 2%; everyone else at 1% or less. The surprise in the Emerson poll is Yang at 8% but that's a real outlier, as he's been mostly hovering in the 2 to 4 percent range in the other polls.

It's been reported that Warren has the strongest campaign staff and presence in both Iowa and Nevada. The most recent Nevada poll is by USA Today/Suffolk:

Biden - 23%

Warren - 19%

Sanders - 14%

Harris - 4%

Buttigieg - 3%

Yang - 3%

Steyer - 3%

Booker at 2% and everyone else at 1% or lower.

If current trends continue, Warren has a real shot at taking the first three Democratic contests: Iowa on February 3rd, New Hampshire on February 11th, and Nevada on February 22nd. South Carolina, on February 29th, remains firmly in Biden territory but I would expect that to change if Warren can pull off that early trifecta.

Biden and Sanders are both going to have to go after her a bit more directly in the coming weeks. It will be interesting to see this play out, particularly in the next debate.

I've linked the Politico article on Warren's campaign in Nevada below. The article is something of a puff piece, of course, but interesting, nonetheless.

[quote]Among 17 Democratic strategists, activists and experts interviewed by POLITICO for this story, Warren’s campaign was mentioned most often as the most impressive of the field, followed by Harris'.

Will all of this mess in Washington affect Biden as a candidate now?

We don't know yet, R73. I could make a case both ways: that it will help him because people will see these attacks on him are politically motivated, have no basis in reality, and show just how much Trump fears him. Or that it will hurt him because like, "but her emails," Republicans will manage to persuade people that something must be wrong, even though there's nothing there.

That question should be answered in a couple of weeks, as new polls come out.

r73, I'm thinking about that as well. I think it will help him/make him sympathetic. Who wants to see a nice old guy get beat up?

Harris: 3! #kamalawful #kamalies.

[quote]Biden and Sanders are both going to have to go after her a bit more directly in the coming weeks. It will be interesting to see this play out, particularly in the next debate.

Biden is terrible at going after people. He always looks like a bully and a cranky old man. Bernie is a little better because he'll throw some humor in there on occasion but he still looks bad attacking people. They attack Warren at their own peril.

R67. Trump winning wasn't historic. In what world was trump win celebrated. Obama was different because he was the first black person to ever win the presidency and most racial demographics were excited to vote for him. None of the current candidate can generate that type of excitement. Not the charisma nor the uniqueness. America might not have a first lady like Michelle for a while. A woman with intelligence and grace.

R77, you don't even realize how sexist your post is, do you? Do you know that Warren is a woman and that a woman has never been president? And, then you end with some patronizing crap about a good woman being first lady as if that's the goal a woman should settle for in politics. I don't think you can picture a woman as president in your sexist little mind. It doesn't even occur to you that it might actually be historic because though half black, Obama was still a man just like every single other president for the last 200+ years.

R78. Obama wasn't like every single president before him. You tried that bullshit. How many other presidents looked like him. By the way warren is not historic unless she wins against trump. Hillary already claimed that mantle.

[quote]Also, everything is "historic", until it isn't anymore. Trump's election was also "historic".

Trump's win was historic in that he lost the popular vote by a bigger margin than any other U.S president in history.

2008 was a perfect storm for Obama. The public and the media were experiencing Bush fatigue/regret. The economy was in the toilet. There was a lot of fatigue with Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Repugs nominated two unlikable people: a war monger and a redneck airhead. Hillary didn't run a strong primary campaign.

Michelle O has grace? Bitch, please. Dancing on Ellen? Carpool Karaoke? Dancing at a Beyonce concert? Fun - yes, grace - no.

R19 Reverse that and we'll win. Wareen will be tagged with the socialism tag early and often. She was a Republucan and a Reagan supporter..... Give me someone young and bright like Pete as the President. Let old Liz be Biden to his Obama.

R82, you do that and you'll lose the women's vote. Do you have any idea how many times women watch less qualified, younger men get promoted over them while they do all the work? Half the time, the woman has trained the younger man who gets promoted. Pete needs some seasoning at the national level. VP would be great. (And, before you use Obama/Biden as an example again, I think Obama would have been much more effective with a little more seasoning, too.)

[quote]Half the time, the woman has trained the younger man who gets promoted.

Tell me about it!

That's nice. I'm still with Biden. More than ever, actually.

Medicare for all is where we are going. It's an election loser, Warren will be toast.

Other than the main development of Warren now rivaling Biden for the top spot, the other change is Buttigieg starting to overtake Harris.

Yeah, I’m glad to see Buttigieg moving up. My feeling is that Warren will be the nominee and I don’t hate the idea at all.

[quote]Wareen [sic] will be tagged with the socialism tag early and often.

So will every single Democratic candidate, including Biden and Buttigieg. It's inevitable. There is no Democratic candidate that will not be slimed by the Republican machine. It's all they have.

They cannot run on their accomplishments because they don't have any. They can't run on Trump's popularity because he isn't popular. They can't run on their own popularity because many of them just aren't that popular, nor is their party, nor is their Congressional performance. It's going to be "socialism" and "open borders" for the next year, in the House, Senate, and Presidential races.

Harris appears in freefall to me.

I don't know why everybody thinks Pete is doing well. He went down in Iowa, not up.

"There’s clearly something happening on the ground for Buttigieg in Iowa"

I wouldn't worry too much about Warren's Medicare4All plan. We all know that it's not going to happen anytime soon, even if she's elected president. We won't have enough senators to pass it anytime soon, and many of the Dem senators would never support it to begin with. It's a talking point she's using to win the primary, but it's not happening anytime soon.

What WILL happen under President Warren or Biden is an expansion of the ACA with a strong public option. We absolutely will get that if we win back the senate.

John and Mary Rauh, fixtures in New Hampshire Democratic politics, have endorsed Pete Buttigieg for President.

Mary Rauh was one of the New Hampshire co-chairs for President Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008.

Question: why do a bunch of red-state caucusing outcasts get to influence every presidential primary? It should be a different state every presidential primary, not always Iowa.

In addition to being the most serious candidate on most critical issues, I have huge respect for her for not shying away from meeting people and spreading her message. She went to fucking West Virginia and talked to people there, at a rally, about why they tend to vote against their economic interests by voting Republican. It's the right kind of thing to do.

And another reason why she is the right choice.

In all honesty, do you really think Pete can win the general election? Go on over to Reddit and read the comments made by "liberals". It's a real eye-opener.

[quote] Glad to see Biden finally falling in the polls.

“The polls?” This is Iowa. Iowa Dems have always been ultra lib. Guess what happens when the primaries move to bigger states — especially the south and northeast? Biden Biden Biden.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, R98. There's a reason that candidates put so much into winning those early states. You are dead if you lose the first three. You're, in fact, pretty much dead if you lose two of the first three. The bigger states won't even matter. Biden will be done before then.

[quote] Question: why do a bunch of red-state caucusing outcasts get to influence every presidential primary? It should be a different state every presidential primary, not always Iowa.

Good question. Note that when Bernie would win a primary or caucus, it was almost always in a state that Dems don’t stand a chance in hell of carrying.

Iowa only matters because it has positioned itself so early in the process — for “momentum.” Iowa is actually a purple state, but it really doesn’t matter. Winning Iowa is all for perception. Warren will never be the democratic nominee.

You’d better hope you’re wrong, r99. Because we cannot win the GE without the swing states, and scoldy Warren is deader that fried chicken in those states. She can’t possibly win a general election. She’s McGovern 2.0.

LOL Pete sliding right in there. It's tight, but he's persistent, has the moves, and knows what he's doing.

Well, if Froma Harrop and R101 say so...

Calling her "scoldy" shows who you are so, again, fuck right off.

The problem for Warren is that even though she will win Iowa and New Hampshire, Biden will still be popular in other states and it will be a long drawn-out battle all the way to the convention. Her wins won't be the knockout blows that they should be. Sanders will make it worse by keeping it a three person race. The only way to avoid that is if party leaders convince Biden to drop if he loses those two states.

[quote]Sanders will make it worse by keeping it a three person race. The only way to avoid that is if party leaders convince Biden to drop if he loses those two states.

I wish someone could convince Sanders to drop out and persuade his supporters to support Warren, but I know that's not going to happen.

Warren is a scolding Massachusetts professor. She will lose as bad as Dukakis or Kerry. No more Massachusetts nominees

Your head is stuck in a different century, r106. Warren has pretty much nothing in common with Dukakis or Kerry except representing Massachusetts.

r106, they could nominate someone from Minnesota instead. That's worked well.

[quote]The problem for Warren is that even though she will win Iowa and New Hampshire, Biden will still be popular in other states and it will be a long drawn-out battle all the way to the convention.

That's possible. Biden has a huge lead in this week's South Carolina poll.

Biden: 36%

Warren: 14%

Sanders: 7%

Harris: 4%

Buttigieg: 3%

Wow... so much stupidity in such a short time:

[quote]Iowa Dems have always been ultra lib.

[quote]Warren will never be the democratic nominee.

[quote]scoldy Warren is deader that fried chicken in those states. She can’t possibly win a general election.

I don't even have to post the data to refute these assertions, as they're so damn stupid they're pretty much self-refuting. Of course this was the same idiot who was insisting that the public was adamantly opposed to impeachment and that nothing could possibly make them change their minds.

That uses conventional turnout models, where I don't feel that the electorate in South Carolina next year is going to be as black as it has been.

[quote]I don't feel that the electorate in South Carolina next year is going to be as black as it has been.

The reverse Rachel Dolezal effect?

Obama was losing South Carolina before he won Iowa. The common thought on why is that blacks in SC didn't think he had a chance of winning. Once he won Iowa, they flooded in to support him.

Biden is their safe choice, for now. That will not last, especially after he loses both Iowa and New Hampshire.

R113. Yeah but Obama did not have embarrassing single low digits among black voters like some of the candidates. Black people won't abandon Biden because they see him as the best and safest choice.

Yes, and although Obama was trailing Hillary when the race started, he was running 2nd. He wasn't way down like some of the other candidates. So while there is the potential for other candidates to move up, some of them are starting from lower down than Obama did.

R114, he would have but for the fact that he was black. Biden is heading down in every poll. He's still winning in some of them but that's just because his downward momentum hasn't carried him down far enough yet. He's gained nothing. It's all been down.

R116, Biden has lost some ground, but his numbers are still holding up in many places. The one who has lost the most ground is Sanders. And Harris is on a downward trajectory, as well.

Biden still has a chance to win the nomination, as does Warren, who has made up the most ground over the past 6 months.

What a fucked-up system we have where a handful of white people in flyover country Iowa and New Hampshire get to decide who the final group of Democratic nominees will be. And don’t even get me started on the electoral system.

Why do people allow this shit?

R118, it's not really those two states determining it. Those states are not the reason that the people that had to drop out dropped out or the people who are doing so poorly are sucking. They had to drop out because they didn't catch on nationally at all. Those two states vote first but the winnowing process is national.

Biden's problem is that Trump now wants to bring Biden down with him into this Ukraine mess. Just look at that ad on his Twitter today. Some of that shit will inevitably stick to Biden, despite how much other candidates insist it shouldn't be an issue.

r118 They don't decide, they just shape the narrative. You can then choose yourself whether you'll follow that narrative or not when it's your state's turn to vote. Besides, South Carolina is mostly black and Latinos are something like a third of the electorate in Nevada, so all bases are covered in the early states when you look at it that way.

Biden Nosedives in Early State Polls

When you are counting on a firewall, you're already losing.

One very telling thing from the article at R122 is that Warren hasn't even started campaigning in South Carolina yet. As we've seen, the more you see her, the more you like her. She's gaining without even being there right now. Once she shifts her focus toward South Carolina, Biden is done.

So true about counting on “firewalls.” Hillary thought she had a durable firewall, but her reliance upon it was faulty and lazy.

What about a nominating system that skews heavily towards black voters in southern states, meaningless in general elections often?

That doesn't exist, R125, at least not in the United States in 2020. The black population isn't a factor until South Carolina, the fourth primary/caucus. After that comes Super Tuesday, which is all over the country.