Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post has an interesting column today on why Warren and Buttigieg have surged in Iowa. She attributes their success to four key factors:
(1) As an antidote to Trump’s dopery, “Democrats (who take governing seriously) were just waiting for a supersmart, articulate, knowledgeable and informed candidate”;
(2) “both Warren and Buttigieg have found a way to talk about faith, something the left hasn’t done for years”;
(3) “Warren and Buttigieg are not gloom and doom candidates”; and
(4) “better than most other candidates, they’ve used free media to their advantage.”
Rubin sums up her analysis this way:
the success of Warren and Buttigieg shouldn’t surprise us. Optimism, confidence, a can-do attitude and bold value statements traditionally have worked well for candidates (e.g., Presidents Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama). And good candidates who are their own best messengers tend to beat weaker candidates who either shrink from the press or provide mushy, equivocating answers.
While I don’t think her analysis presents the whole story, the topics it does cover have the ring of truth. And it is shocking that in a state where Sanders got 49.6% last primary season, he’s sitting in the mid-teens in a virtual tie with Warren and Buttigieg.
There are lessons for all Democratic candidates in this analysis, especially the value of being an optomistic, not gloom and doom candidate, and the need to take advantage of free media. Worth a quick read.
Updated to add:
CNN’s analysis of the new Iowa poll notes:
- It's not just the topline that's good for Buttigieg and Warren. Among those who can form an opinion of a given candidate, both are tied for the best very favorable rating among in-person caucus goers.
It also notes this:
The topline for Kamala Harris isn't great in CNN's latest Iowa poll. She's only at 7%, while Warren (15%) and Buttigieg (14%) have zoomed past her.
The obvious problem is she's competing over a similar bloc of voters with those two. All three do better among college-educated caucusgoers compared to non-college-educated caucusgoers (16% vs. 12% for Buttigieg, 8% vs. 3% for Harris and 17% vs. 12% for Warren). All do better among liberals compared to moderates (18% vs. 11% for Buttigieg, 9% vs. 2% for Harris and 22% to 5% for Warren).