Still not running.
Daily Kos is a reality-based community, and part of that mission requires accurate reading of data. Indeed, privileging good data over bad is central to allowing us to provide an accurate picture of the political landscape. We've been obsessed with it for over a decade, and it has allowed us to deliver some of the most accurate analysis you'll find anywhere.
That doesn't just mean trashing crap right-wing polling, but it also means refusing to accept bullshit data just because it might be favorable to our interests. That is what Daily Kos has stood for, and that is what we want Daily Kos to be known for.
Which leads us to a poll being circulated by the Draft Warren crowd. There is great data in this poll, which I will get to in a bit, but unfortunately, they've focused on the pretense that Elizabeth Warren is viable against Hillary Clinton. The toplines of the poll of likely Democratic primary/caucus voters in Iowa and New Hampshire (emphasis in the original):
* Virtually all respondents agree with the case for a contested race, with 98% agreeing that a competitive primary is good for the party, candidates and voters. Further, the survey reveals that the more Democrats learn about Warren, the more supportive they become.
Nothing controversial about that. Contested primaries are good. That's why maybe the Draft Warren crowd should focus on finding a candidate who actually wants to run.
* After hearing positive information about Elizabeth Warren, 79% said they would like her to run for president in 2016, including 82% of likely Iowa Democratic caucus goers and 76% of likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters.
* After hearing this information, without any negatives on other candidates, Elizabeth Warren leads all other candidates for the nomination in both states: 31% to 24% over Clinton in Iowa (with other potential candidates further behind) and 30% to 27% in New Hampshire.
This is an "informed ballot" poll. These kinds of polls are great for crafting a candidate's message and testing any vulnerabilities. They are used by campaigns to craft strategy and anticipate opposition attacks. What they are
not good for is actually evaluating the state of a race.
But this poll fails even at the "informed ballot" part, because such polls generally provide positive and negative information on each candidate. This poll? Not only did it skip the negative portion of the informed ballot test, but ...
this is not a so-called “clean” head-to-head ballot question, as voters were provided positive information about Warren but not other potential candidates.
So a poll talks about all the awesome things Warren has done and believes in (all true), but doesn't provide the positive narrative for Clinton or any other candidate. Then, surprise (!) a big chunk of people decide that they'd like Warren. Not exactly shocking news. Or relevant.
In other words, this poll would be relevant if Warren had all the money in the world to make her case to voters in the Iowa and New Hampshire, but Hillary Clinton ran but didn't say a peep. And we know that's not how campaigns run.
Head below the fold for more on this story.
Yet despite the one-sided advocacy on behalf of Warren, she still doesn't come out with a clear lead, ahead just 31-24 in Iowa and 30-27 in New Hampshire. Got that? Despite making the strongest case for Warren while ignoring the opposition, she can't even get a third of primary/caucus voters to support her. Warren has made it clear she doesn't want to run, and nothing in this poll suggests she's making the wrong choice.
On the other hand, the poll does point out the extreme popularity of populist positions, a message that Democrats (including Hillary) should take to heart. For example, there is near universal support among Democrats for student debt relief, near universal opposition to any cuts to Social Security, near universal support for breaking up big banks, and strong opposition to the TPP free trade deal and building the Keystone XL pipeline.
In other words, Warren's positions are widely popular inside the party. It would behoove Clinton to adopt them all, not just because it would grease her path in a primary that is hers if she runs, but because those positions are (mostly) popular with the broader American public. (The one exception is Keystone XL, where public polling is muddied at best, but won't be an issue voters will consider when choosing the next president.)
There is no sense in continuing to push for something (Warren for president) that simply won't happen. It's setting up people for failure, disappointment and disillusionment. But yes, a contested primary would be good. So if the draft people are serious, why not find a candidate that will make that statement run? Sen. Bernie Sanders appears ready and willing. Why not him?
p.s. I may have written this last July, but it's still very much relevant.