Elizabeth Warren would seem to have a certain political problem – the more people know her, know about her, the less they like or support her. This is the opposite of the normal American political problem, which is gaining any form of name recognition at all. It’s also not all that hugely surprising to close observers of American politics. There’s little so appealing to a voter as being lectured by those who remind of one’s first mother in law:[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Elizabeth Warren continues to underperform among voters who know her best[/perfectpullquote]
This is a basic problem.[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]These numbers are definitely not good for Warren, however. She’s in fourth place.
Warren almost certainly needs a first or second place finish in New Hampshire if she wants to succeed nationally. The Granite State is right next to her home state of Massachusetts. Massachusetts candidates usually gain an edge in the New Hampshire primary compared to how they do nationally. Paul Tsongas, John Kerry and Mitt Romney all did well in New Hampshire compared to other early contests.
Now if Warren wasn’t so well known by New Hampshire voters that would be one thing. Polling indicates, however, that Warren has near universal name recognition in the state.[/perfectpullquote]
The first great battle is to get people to know who you are. To get stuck in their minds that you exist, that you’re on the ballot and that they should recall you and your name as they decide who to vote for. This all rather comes apart if you’ve managed to achieve that and the decision people make is no, not voting for that one.
But then hope springs eternal. Perhaps a slightly screechier version of Hillary Clinton really is what Americans would like to vote for?