What happened to Elizabeth Warren? She positioned 4th in the New Hampshire Primary. She stood 3rd in the Iowa debacle. She’s gone on a precipitous drop for a lady who is seeking to portray herself as the left-wing variation of Trump. The party’s foundation is supposedly more left-wing. No, it is—Sanders is now the frontrunner, which verifies the party’s lurch to Lenin. So, with Lie-a-Watha pressing Medicare for All, you’d think the progressive Left would at the very least provide her a shot to beat Bernie Sanders, right? Nope. She’s sliding off a cliff, losing liberal voters.
The Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman documented that he feels the NYT/Siena poll displaying Warren as the most severe candidate to take care of off versus Trump as the switching 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 fallen by 50 percent in New Hampshire prior to Election Day. What’s taking place? Well, he details good reasons why Democratic voters would be unwilling to vote for Warren whose medical care plan could be attractive to the ferocious Left but understand the ‘won’t raise middle-class taxes’ segment is bunk. She lied about her heritage. And she just comes off an unnatural. He, like Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel, also mentioned the thing she asserted that probably have elevated eyebrows from the progressive 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 produced a large, most likely critical, campaign error—and immediately proceeded to make it worse. If the Warren presidential bid flops, this will be the moment to the symbol.
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.
Graham added, a lot of her fall has to do with health care:
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 massage, 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.