

Say it ain’t so! Is “Pocahontas” about to go?



In every presidential election cycle, it’s normal for voters to go through a series of “political romances” when trying to choose between party candidates running for the top office in the land. Some experts suggest finding the right match is akin to “dating” and others compare the process to window shopping where consumers get a good gander at the “merchandise” on display (a.k.a., TV screen) but only enter the store if and when appearances match their fancies. Whichever analogy works best for them, Iowa Democrats are within weeks of needing to settle on a competitor -- or at least narrow their indecision down to a leader and a close follower or two.



Enter Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren. The outspoken ultra-liberal Massachusetts senator was the first prominent Democrat to enter the party field (with her now infamous “I’m going to get me, um, a beer” announcement via Instagram over a year ago), had her brief moment in the national spotlight last October and now finds herself on the down escalator looking up at the top tier. It’s gotten so bad for the once proud Bay Stater that people are speculating on whether her campaign could be on political life support.



Naomi Lim reported yesterday at The Washington Examiner, “After largely shunning national television interviews, the Massachusetts senator, 70, appeared on Sunday morning news programs and MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show. She also unveiled a scarce endorsement from a former rival for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, hosting a rally this week with Julian Castro, 45, in New York. And she bounded into the New Year with campaign trips to Iowa and New Hampshire.



“But, while she’s built a strong organizing network of paid field staff and volunteers in the states hosting the first two nominating contests, she’s making her final push ahead of the start of the primary season with soft polling and fundraising numbers. She was even outraised in the final quarter of 2019 by former Vice President Joe Biden, 77, whose own struggles with donors have been well documented.



“’There are three tickets out of Iowa and New Hampshire. You need to finish top three in one of those states, unless we are looking at a brokered convention, which is a possibility, given the fluidity of this race,’ Christopher Hahn, Aggressive Progressive podcast host and former Democratic strategist, told the Washington Examiner.”



It’s generally accepted that only the top three in the Hawkeye State and New Hampshire have any shot at capturing the party nomination, but if ever there was a year when conventional wisdom was proved wrong, it’d be this one. Self-financing billionaire Michael Bloomberg, for example, is dumping millions into TV ads in the Super Tuesday (March 3) states to try and execute an end-around on the way things are usually done in party nominating courses, so it’s conceivable that the first voting jurisdictions won’t carry the same punch -- and maximum of three “you’re still viable tickets” that they normally do.



Ruling class members recall 2016, when establishment GOP favorite Jeb Bush finished fourth in New Hampshire (after coming in a dismal sixth in Iowa with a measly 2.8 % of the caucus votes), a showing which, at the time, was said to be good enough to continue his run to try and follow-up on his dad’s and brother’s presidencies. Poor “low energy” Jeb proceeded to make a donkey out of himself during the ensuing South Carolina candidates’ debate, however, and he was summarily drummed out of the field with a horrific fourth place finish in the Palmetto State (with only about a third of the vote totals of second and third place candidates Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz).



Of course Donald Trump came in second (to Ted Cruz) in Iowa four years ago, lapped the field in New Hampshire (with well over twice as many votes as second place finisher John Kasich) and legged out another impressive 10-point win in South Carolina. By that time, each Republican candidate was looking in the mirror wondering how/why a brash, orange haired, small handed (remember Rubio said Trump had unusually tiny hands?) outsider like Trump was doing so well with the GOP grassroots.



The answer was Trump represented something markedly different -- and it turns out, better -- than what Republican voters were handed in the previous establishment-dominated primary races that produced John McCain in ’08 and Mitt Romney in ’12. Trump was a fearless (some would say tactless) counter-puncher and wasn’t the least bit hesitant to leap into the political mosh pit to throw elbows and inflict black eyes. Conservatives wanted a fighter, and in Trump, they got one.



The media didn’t get it (Trump’s success), but it didn’t matter to the people in flyover country who weren’t about to be told what to do this time around.



How does 2016’s GOP results relate to Warren’s current situation? It offers perspective on her chances to make a comeback from her fourth place standing in the polls (in Iowa, New Hampshire and third place nationally). As Lim’s article correctly pointed out, Warren lags far behind fellow leftist Bernie Sanders in fundraising, which is destined to hurt her. Sanders has also opened up leads over “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg and Grampa Joe Biden in Iowa and New Hampshire. Those three remain close at the top, with poor “Pocahontas” having to set up her teepee well in back of the trio of white male frontrunners. Democrat party rules award convention delegates to candidates with a certain percentage of the statewide vote, so at least there’s a glimmer of hope for her there.



But to this admittedly non-Democrat observer, there are a number reasons why Warren continues losing ground and is possibly on political death watch in her campaign. First, she’s annoying. All three of the men polling above her have some endearing aspect of their personas which helps people relate to them. Biden is the type of back slappin’ good guy everyone wants to sit next to at family gatherings (even if he goes out of his way to sniff women’s hairdos and make kids uncomfortable). Sanders is the crotchety old uncompromising populist curmudgeon who’s against the system and doesn’t shy away from oaths to burn every institution to the ground if he’s elected. And Buttigieg is the fresh face who represents a departure from the gnarled foul-smelling past.



In contrast, poor Liz repels people. She’s got a high-pitched screechy voice (like Hillary Clinton’s), can’t get her family history straight, won’t look opponents in the eye when attacking them and has bugged-out eyes that would make a bird-of-prey jealous.



Second, Warren’s campaign proposals are far-fetched and don’t make sense. She purports to “have a plan” for every problem yet can’t adequately account for how to pay for her grandiose giveaways and won’t expand on her noxious “wealth tax” idea.



Even liberals see her tax the rich scheme as too severe. Limousine liberal Joy Behar of “The View” fame, after telling Liz how much she likes her, said people are afraid she’s going to “tax the Bejesus out of them.” Warren’s acquired a well-deserved reputation for being anti-success, which doesn’t endear her to the vast majority of Americans who don’t despise wealthy folks who earned their cash through their own smarts and hard exertions.



Liz ain’t exactly a pauper, either. With an estimated net-worth of twelve million bucks, Warren and her hubby won’t be found begging in soup kitchens anytime soon (unless she’s pandering for votes by demonizing the rich). Buttigieg exposed her hypocrisy in last month’s Democrat debate when she accused him of being too close to billionaire donors in wine caves…



Third, Bernie Sanders isn’t going away. The 2016 Democrat runner-up is repeating his improbable strong showing again this year, and if anything, has improved upon his already considerable base of support. With Warren directly vying with “The Bern” for the far-left wingnut slice of the party pie, she’s tasked with convincing them she’s more able to bring pure socialism to the good ‘ol U.S.A. And she’s not doing a very good job of it.



Simply put, Sanders comes across as more authentic and genuine. The oldest candidate in the Democrat race isn’t saddled with Warren’s “I’m 1/1024th Cherokee Indian” baggage, either. No wonder Bernie is pulling noticeably out in front of Liz.



Fourth, Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment drive is drawing media attention that could otherwise be going to Warren. If Liz isn’t even the toughest or most visible woman in Democrat-land, what does it say about her ability to pull all of the party’s constituencies together to be able to take on and defeat Trump in November?



Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, Warren peaked too early. When Liz reached the top of the national polls last October, people hadn’t yet completed their political window shopping… or they’d lined up some other “dates” after taking her out for a test-run. And when you’re being “romanced” by the sweet-talking Biden, the earnestness of Sanders or the “cuteness” of “Mayor Pete”, “Pocahontas” couldn’t measure up with them.



Then there’s the Iran thing, which Warren badly botched this week. David M. Drucker wrote at The Washington Examiner, “Political strategists and foreign policy thinkers on the Left are sharply critical of Trump for ordering a military strike to kill senior Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, fretting it could draw the U.S. into another major war in the Middle East that the president is ill-equipped to manage. But some Democratic insiders are nevertheless uncomfortable with objections that are emanating from a few of their White House front-runners regarding Trump and his strategy to contain Iran…



“Warren perhaps has absorbed the most criticism.

“After initially calling Soleimani a ‘murderer’ but questioning Trump’s decision to take him out on strategic grounds — the critique many Democrats would like to see from their candidates — the Massachusetts senator shifted her criticism. She began describing Soleimani as a ‘senior foreign military official’ who was assassinated. Sanders has used similar rhetoric, with Biden and Buttigieg sounding like Warren did originally, casting Soleimani as a bad guy who deserved his fate, but saying the move could backfire.”



It’s hard enough for Liz to look robust and principled, and her waffling on Soleimani’s killing made her appear even more indecisive and weak. Imagine “Pocahontas” in a one-on-one presidential debate with Trump this fall. The beating would be so bad it’d be ugly. What independent American voter would choose wild-eyed Warren over the proven, steady hand of Trump?



Successful presidential candidates must endure and survive the most thorough vetting of any job on earth. Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren didn’t figure to be the sturdiest of candidates -- she can’t even get her background straight -- and the process exposed her as a wavering fraud. Will she exit after Iowa and New Hampshire?