Forget the interminable impeachment hearings or the seemingly endless display of Democratic debates: Is there anyone who’s had a worse couple of weeks in American politics than Liz Warren?

First her campaign crashes over Medicare For All. Then she gets a dagger under the ribs from Deval Patrick. And then … Buttigieg.

Forget whether Warren won or lost in Atlanta last night. The real (and really bad) news for the 2020 hopeful hit her in New Hampshire.

A new poll from St. Anselm College puts the Massachusetts senator 10 points behind Pete Buttigieg in her own backyard. Not “Sleepy Joe” or “Crazy Bernie.” Warren is losing in her own media market to a guy who won his last election with 8,500 votes.

OK, I’m exaggerating. It was 8,515.

I’m not sure Democratic primary voters grasp just how utterly untested Pete Buttigieg is as a presidential candidate. South Bend, Ind., where he’s currently viewed as an unimpressive mayor with a troubled record on race relations, isn’t just — as Montana Gov. Steve Bullock dismisses it — a “college town.” It’s a city smaller than Manchester, N.H. It would be like the mayor of Framingham suddenly announcing she wants the nuclear codes and a seat on Air Force One. (Mayor Yvonne Spicer would neither confirm nor deny reports she was planning a last-second entrance into the 2020 POTUS race.)

Mayor Pete is a 37-year-old, openly-gay, small-city mayor whose name recognition when he announced was lower than the average contestant on “Dancing With the Stars” … and he’s beating Liz Warren.

In New Hampshire.

How bad is that? “New England Democrats don’t lose New Hampshire,” one longtime Granite State party insider told me. “If they do, they go home.”

JFK, Mike Dukakis, John Kerry — even Paul Tsongas managed a win in New Hampshire. Howard Dean of Vermont lost to fellow New Englander Kerry, and his campaign was done. The only New England Dem to survive a primary loss in the Granite State was Sen. Ted Kennedy in 1980, and that was against an incumbent president. (Kennedy, the narcissist that he was, refused to concede until the convention, contributing in his own way to Reagan’s landslide win.)

That’s how important New Hampshire is to Warren’s campaign, which is why the most significant news out of the latest polls isn’t that Buttigieg is winning but that Warren isn’t.

Yes, it’s true that Joe Biden has had off-and-on leads over Warren, but that can be dismissed as part of the larger divide between the “liberal but still like Obama” Democrats vs. the “Whaddaya mean we can’t nominate Karl Marx?” crowd. Warren hasn’t been competing for Biden’s voters. But Buttigieg’s backers come straight out of the Warren base: affluent, college-educated elitist liberal snobs.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that …

Setting aside Bernie Sanders’s impact, no small thing in a state where he won 60 percent of the vote four years ago, smart Democrats are asking, “Why hasn’t Warren locked up New Hampshire?” If she ties for first with Bernie, she’s fine. The takeaway will be that two local progressives split the vote, and they’ll both move on.

But tied with Buttigieg? Or — gasp! — losing to him? If that happens, Warren will have locked down her place in history on a future Trivial Pursuit card.

Warren’s fans will cry, “Sexist!” And if they want to believe that the same Granite State Democrats who backed Hillary over Obama in 2008 are members of the “He-Man Woman Hater’s Club” — good luck with that. More honest observers will instead stop insulting the voters and start asking tough questions about the candidate.

It’s a long way to Feb. 11 and the First in the Nation primary. Warren may turn it all around. But the lesson of the 2020 primary thus far is that Democrats keep looking for reasons to not vote for Liz Warren.

Michael Graham is a regular contributor to the Boston Herald. Follow him on Twitter @IAmMGraham.