In early November, the polling experts at 538.com wrote that Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s poll numbers had “leveled off” but were unsure if it she had hit a ceiling or if it might just be a “momentary blip.”

As it turns out, it wasn’t just a “momentary blip.” After several months of a slow ascent to the top tier, Warren’s numbers are actually in a decline. She now trails Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders nationally and is also falling behind in key primary/caucus states:

The senator has lost ground in the Real Clear Politics national average of primary polls relative not just to Joe Biden but Bernie Sanders. She’s lost over eight points in that measurement in the space of just six weeks. The story is much the same in Iowa, where Warren has shed five points from her October peak and ceded momentum to South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg. In New Hampshire, the Bay State’s backyard, Warren’s position deteriorated by eight points in roughly the same timeframe.

The four most recent polls in the caucus state of Iowa show Warren in second to Mayor Pete after behind ahead of the pack or tied there for several weeks.

Her numbers in New Hampshire are very wobbly, and currently she stands at just 1.7% ahead of Mayor Pete in the polling averages there.

Here’s what the national averages chart looks like for the last six months. Biden is the green line, Warren is the brown, and Bernie is the periwinkle blue (the mustard yellow color is Kamala Harris):

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

All of these polls were taken before this week’s Democratic debate, so it will be interesting to see what things look like for Warren in the coming days in terms of post-debate polling.

So what brought the decline on? As I’ve written before, I don’t think there’s any question that numbers drop coincides with the release of the details of her Medicare for All plan, and the scrutiny of it that has been done by analysts. For months she had stalled Democratic voters, journalists, debate moderators, and her political opponents when pressed for specifics on what the plan would be like and how it would be paid for.

It frustrated people and made it look like she was either unprepared for the questions or trying to hide something – or both.

And when she finally did release it, it was an insult to everyone’s intelligence. She actually stated in her Medium post the plan would be fully paid for “with targeted spending cuts, new taxes on giant corporations and the richest 1% of Americans, and by cracking down on tax evasion and fraud. Not one penny in middle-class tax increases.”

Even Democratic voters who are much more open to these types of government plans know their taxes would go up under Warren’s plan. Billionaires cannot and will not be funding every penny of it. It costs an estimated $52 trillion. The money has to come from somewhere.

Guess where it will come from? In addition to those billionaires and employers, the middle class would indeed be paying for it, contra Warren’s claims otherwise. Even CNN did an analysis and talked to numerous economic experts who noted backdoor and indirect ways Warren’s plan will cost middle class taxpayers money.

Remember, too, that two of the biggest critics of Warren’s version of Medicare for All have been Mayor Pete and Biden. Even Sanders has criticized it to a lesser extent. In addition to that, he’s also stopped reminding voters that his plan, too, would raise taxes on the middle class. All three of them have seen their national numbers rise this month where Warren’s have dropped.

It would seem that the people who have criticized her Medicare for All plan the most have elevated their campaigns at the expense of hers.

In the debate over healthcare plans, Elizabeth Warren seems to be losing the battle. It remains to be seen if she will ultimately lose the war over it, too.

— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —

 
 
donate
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.