I really don't understand how people without college educations fail to respond to Warren. She has one of the cleanest and most concise speaking styles that breaks down complex issues to simple to understand relationships.
Her take down of how corporate greed and tax cuts are never going to get to most people is really well done, for example.
Her messaging on corporate greed is also very easily understood, but much more nuanced than "You're getting fucked!"
She sounds like a politician if you dont have politics as a hobby.
I really don't understand how people without college educations fail to respond to Warren. She has one of the cleanest and most concise speaking styles that breaks down complex issues to simple to understand relationships.
Her take down of how corporate greed and tax cuts are never going to get to most people is really well done, for example.
Her messaging on corporate greed is also very easily understood, but much more nuanced than "You're getting fucked!"
I think it's mostly they aren't paying any attention. That's not a knock against them. Most people across all demographics are not paying attention. They get bits from mainstream media which right now is "Biden Biden Biden Sanders Biden Warren Harris Biden Biden Biden".
I really don't understand how people without college educations fail to respond to Warren. She has one of the cleanest and most concise speaking styles that breaks down complex issues to simple to understand relationships.
Her take down of how corporate greed and tax cuts are never going to get to most people is really well done, for example.
Her messaging on corporate greed is also very easily understood, but much more nuanced than "You're getting fucked!"
She sounds like a politician if you dont have politics as a hobby.
They all do, even Sanders. Although him somewhat less than others.
I really don't understand how people without college educations fail to respond to Warren. She has one of the cleanest and most concise speaking styles that breaks down complex issues to simple to understand relationships.
Her take down of how corporate greed and tax cuts are never going to get to most people is really well done, for example.
Her messaging on corporate greed is also very easily understood, but much more nuanced than "You're getting fucked!"
She sounds like a politician if you dont have politics as a hobby.
They all do, even Sanders. Although him somewhat less than others.
Well the somewhat less than others is getting him results. Some might dismiss "youre getting fucked" but it works with a lot of people.
I really don't understand how people without college educations fail to respond to Warren. She has one of the cleanest and most concise speaking styles that breaks down complex issues to simple to understand relationships.
Her take down of how corporate greed and tax cuts are never going to get to most people is really well done, for example.
Her messaging on corporate greed is also very easily understood, but much more nuanced than "You're getting fucked!"
She sounds like a politician if you dont have politics as a hobby.
They all do, even Sanders. Although him somewhat less than others.
Well the somewhat less than others is getting him results. Some might dismiss "youre getting fucked" but it works with a lot of people.
I think we’re a little early to be declaring whether or not he’s getting results.
+5
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
A lot of people are probably still not paying attention to the primary. We’re still like five months out from a vote being cast. Non-college educated people are more likely to not be tuned in yet. Warren does better the more people pay attention.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Attacking platforms that post anti-vax drivel is perfectly fine, and while with the best of intentions, you're behaving the way that alt-right trolls do: come in, demand a debate, sling articles, and dismiss opinions if they haven't read everything you've posted. The reality is none of us have time for that. When someone points out problems with a given organization, the reaction shouldn't be "oh, you're just attacking the PLATFORM, not the MESSAGE", but rather maybe revisiting the platform as a reliable source of information - noting that the article originates elsewhere is fine, and fits with this. I know nothing about that other org, and as stated don't really have time to go digging right now, but just saying.
(That being said, I also agree with the base premise that a lot of established characters are discharitable in coverage towards people who may upset the current order, and Sanders falls on the "bad" side of that.)
I really don't understand how people without college educations fail to respond to Warren. She has one of the cleanest and most concise speaking styles that breaks down complex issues to simple to understand relationships.
Her take down of how corporate greed and tax cuts are never going to get to most people is really well done, for example.
Her messaging on corporate greed is also very easily understood, but much more nuanced than "You're getting fucked!"
This goes back to what @spool32 was talking about months ago. She's very professorial. A lot of people who only have high school diplomas or lower didn't have a good experience in school, and don't have a positive association with being "taught" to. Consciously, or unconsciously, her rhetoric is hitting on some nerves that make them more negatively disposed towards her.
Theres a positive relationship between education at an age and voting especially in primaries. But theres also a negative relationship between age and education especially over 30. Think it still ends up positive but maybe not as much as you'd expect
Roughly 39% of the population of the country has no college education. 55% don't have an Associates or Bachelor's degree.
So....yes, a large block.
Can't find a study, but I believe there's a correlation between education and likeliness to vote, so it's a large block which is less likely to vote, but WAY too large to just write off.
I really don't understand how people without college educations fail to respond to Warren.
My personal pet theory is that a lot of folks who really, really like Warren can probably name an educator in their life that she reminds them of, either an actual one from their life or a role she very well represents the concept of to them (for me its guidance counselor).
Meanwhile a lot of folks who didn't finish college can probably name an educator she reminds them of that probably annoyed them.
Basically, to me, Warren reads as the platonic ideal of 'educator' and people respond to her the way they would react to that concept, in general.
And sadly there are way too many parents who think their kids' teachers are trying to fill their head with useless bullshit.
I really don't understand how people without college educations fail to respond to Warren. She has one of the cleanest and most concise speaking styles that breaks down complex issues to simple to understand relationships.
That sounds like something that would appeal to middle-class people. Working class people seem to prefer Biden or Trump's emotionally-based rather than logically-based speech.
Folks that knew she'd be trying this run a long time ago started trying to weigh her down with bullshit propaganda years ago. I'm honestly surprised she's breaking through it. I give credit to warren that she's been able to grow her support at all in the demographic considering there's already been years of work directly against her there. I'd say the issue in is less that they don't like her because they've listened to her and made an informed decision based upon contrasting her positions with her opponents it's that they've been hearing vague propaganda about how she's bad for years already. Literally that propaganda is always vague generalized leftism scare tactics, or more ridiculously trying to paint her as some Clinton 2.0, and often a little racist, but the strategy at work is rather obvious, and has been seeping through various subcultures for years already. It's why I'm worried about NH because I know NH conservatives have tried to use Warren as some kind of progressive boogie man for years. Polling seems to indicate that hasn't been super successful, but I am unsurprised that the demographics most susceptible to, and directly targeted by the propaganda I've been seeing for years are gonna be harder to reach. They've specifically been primed to be harder to reach.
Not many union members stayed to hear Amy Klobuchar here at AFL-CIO conference in Philly. Place cleared out after Bernie left.
Klobuchar not getting much love from the AFL-CIO. If she isn't doing well with blue collar folks then I don't know how she can convince herself to continue.
Steven Peoples is a chief political reporter for the AP.
Warren's unfavorability ratings are low and multiple times have gone down further as familiarity with her has risen. I see no reason to think she's having trouble communicating.
She does have the sexism hill to climb, particularly the soft version of "it's too risky to run a woman against Trump."
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
The Post is owned by real life Lex Luthor Jeff Bezos, isn't it? The epitome of greed who has so much excess capital he wants to start some sort of space travel company just to do something with it all?
He's exactly the sort of amoral predator ultra capitalist Bernie is campaigning against
If you have credible evidence of bias in the Wasington Post, please present it.
Otherwise, I'll put takes like this one on the same shelf as "American officers in the Afghan war are all warcriminals."
The Washington Post seems like a good paper.
But it's definitely biased towards the establishment. They are owned by Jeff Bezos and you can suppose if they start opposing his interests they will get some phone calls. He doesn't seem to like Trump, but equally he doesn't like Bernie. Presumably he doesn't like Warren's plan to break up big tech companies either.
The Post is biased towards establishment because they have a very large office on K St. Even before they moved to that particular building they were in the heart of the city. It's just Inside the Beltway bias, Bezos doesn't have to be a mastermind yelling at the editors to push an angle.
If they are owned by the richest man in the world, why do I still need to pay a subscription to read their articles
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Posts
She sounds like a politician if you dont have politics as a hobby.
I think it's mostly they aren't paying any attention. That's not a knock against them. Most people across all demographics are not paying attention. They get bits from mainstream media which right now is "Biden Biden Biden Sanders Biden Warren Harris Biden Biden Biden".
They all do, even Sanders. Although him somewhat less than others.
Well the somewhat less than others is getting him results. Some might dismiss "youre getting fucked" but it works with a lot of people.
I think we’re a little early to be declaring whether or not he’s getting results.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
(That being said, I also agree with the base premise that a lot of established characters are discharitable in coverage towards people who may upset the current order, and Sanders falls on the "bad" side of that.)
This goes back to what @spool32 was talking about months ago. She's very professorial. A lot of people who only have high school diplomas or lower didn't have a good experience in school, and don't have a positive association with being "taught" to. Consciously, or unconsciously, her rhetoric is hitting on some nerves that make them more negatively disposed towards her.
Theres a positive relationship between education at an age and voting especially in primaries. But theres also a negative relationship between age and education especially over 30. Think it still ends up positive but maybe not as much as you'd expect
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Roughly 39% of the population of the country has no college education. 55% don't have an Associates or Bachelor's degree.
So....yes, a large block.
Can't find a study, but I believe there's a correlation between education and likeliness to vote, so it's a large block which is less likely to vote, but WAY too large to just write off.
My personal pet theory is that a lot of folks who really, really like Warren can probably name an educator in their life that she reminds them of, either an actual one from their life or a role she very well represents the concept of to them (for me its guidance counselor).
Meanwhile a lot of folks who didn't finish college can probably name an educator she reminds them of that probably annoyed them.
Basically, to me, Warren reads as the platonic ideal of 'educator' and people respond to her the way they would react to that concept, in general.
And sadly there are way too many parents who think their kids' teachers are trying to fill their head with useless bullshit.
My parents still don't really know her or her policy positions, yet were quite willing to state that they would never vote for her.
That sounds like something that would appeal to middle-class people. Working class people seem to prefer Biden or Trump's emotionally-based rather than logically-based speech.
That and name recognition of Biden.
Generally, yes, however the trend for Warren, so far, at least appears to be that the more they see/hear her, the more they like her
Harwood is a politics reporter for CNBC.
Folks that knew she'd be trying this run a long time ago started trying to weigh her down with bullshit propaganda years ago. I'm honestly surprised she's breaking through it. I give credit to warren that she's been able to grow her support at all in the demographic considering there's already been years of work directly against her there. I'd say the issue in is less that they don't like her because they've listened to her and made an informed decision based upon contrasting her positions with her opponents it's that they've been hearing vague propaganda about how she's bad for years already. Literally that propaganda is always vague generalized leftism scare tactics, or more ridiculously trying to paint her as some Clinton 2.0, and often a little racist, but the strategy at work is rather obvious, and has been seeping through various subcultures for years already. It's why I'm worried about NH because I know NH conservatives have tried to use Warren as some kind of progressive boogie man for years. Polling seems to indicate that hasn't been super successful, but I am unsurprised that the demographics most susceptible to, and directly targeted by the propaganda I've been seeing for years are gonna be harder to reach. They've specifically been primed to be harder to reach.
Klobuchar not getting much love from the AFL-CIO. If she isn't doing well with blue collar folks then I don't know how she can convince herself to continue.
Steven Peoples is a chief political reporter for the AP.
That's really gotta suck.
She does have the sexism hill to climb, particularly the soft version of "it's too risky to run a woman against Trump."
There was a similar question about disappointment if candidate X was the nominee and Warren had the lowest in a YouGov poll.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Unlike normal she does not seem to see much of any rise in unfavorables as her name id goes up. At least, from the polling I've seen.
that guy sucks and everyone knows it
No it isn't, that's hilarious
The Post is biased towards establishment because they have a very large office on K St. Even before they moved to that particular building they were in the heart of the city. It's just Inside the Beltway bias, Bezos doesn't have to be a mastermind yelling at the editors to push an angle.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.