New Hampshire to Liz Warren: Meh

I hate to join the pile-on against a dying presidential candidacy, except that in this case I absolutely love joining in the pile-on against a dying presidential candidacy.

Maybe it’s because I don’t want Washington usurping whatever remains of the private healthcare industry. Maybe I just don’t think we should tax innovators — and by extension, their innovations — out of existence. Or perhaps I just have a thing against getting lectured about how evil money is by somebody who used to get paid mid-six figures for part-time work hectoring college kids. It could also just be her voice.

Whatever the case, I’m just swooning over the latest Emerson poll showing Elizabeth Warren (D-Other People’s Money) tied for a distant third place with New Hampshire primary voters. Emerson calls today’s numbers “a major shake-up” in New Hampshire rankings, and they aren’t wrong. Former Veep Joe Biden shares the bronze glory with Warren at a mere 14% apiece. South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg crushes them both with 22%, perhaps bolstered by his recent strong numbers in Iowa. But topping them all at 26% is everyone’s favorite “democratic” socialist, Bernie Sanders (D-Yells At Clouds).

Emerson’s numbers should be especially troubling for Warren. Our own Stephen (no relation) Kruiser noted this morning that as “Mayor Pete and Bernie have ascended during Lizzie’s downward plunge… she has lost ground to a moderate and her main socialist rival.” “This,” Kruiser added, “has to be about more than just her particular place on the ideological spectrum.” And as Allahpundit wrote at Hot Air on Tuesday, “Warren has been slipping in lots of polls over the past month and a half. And her downturn in today’s data isn’t really a ‘slip,’ it’s a minor catastrophe.”

And this is in New Hampshire, neighbor to Warren’s home state of Massachusetts, and home to ever-increasing numbers of (ahem) beloved Massholes who know her best.

Or maybe it’s just the voice. It’s Hillary-esque, but exudes less natural warmth.

A look at the primary map ought to be even more disconcerting for America’s least-loved schoolmarm. Her numbers aren’t much better in first-in-the-nation Iowa. RCP’s poll average there has her in third place at 17.7%. That might be survivable, except the trendline is down from less-recent polls that had her in the mid- or even high-20s. From there the vote moves to New Hampshire, which we’ve just discussed thoroughly, and then Nevada whose labor-heavy Dem electorate practically makes it Biden Country. Same story a week or so later in South Carolina, but switch out the Big Labor vote for a black-heavy electorate, which also breaks for Biden.

Warren must be pinning her hopes on California, where she’s going to need a lot of money to be competitive on the high-priced airwaves. California doesn’t do retail politics, darling. You’ve got to buy TV ads — and lots of them — to play in the Golden State. But it looks like the Billionaire Boys, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, will suck all the air out of that particular room.

Minus some game-changing endorsement of Warren and/or sabotage of Sanders by Barack Obama, it looks right now like Warren is going to limp into the Massachusetts primary on March 3, wounded but perhaps not quite dead. But if you were a big Dem donor — right now, today — would you open up your checkbook for Warren again, or would you be eyeing someone with better poll numbers? And if you’re a progressive Democrat voter, and you’re trying to pick the one candidate who can beat Biden, does that look like Third-Place Liz to you? As for New Hampshire, if Warren can’t make it there, can she make it anywhere?