Yeh well, I dont disagree with that. But that is Warren's problem, not Joe's in South Carolina so he should not be trying to take on Stacy Abrams to solve her problem there. She is the one that needs to do something aggressive and risky there, not Joe.
And if one were to believe that Joe can "win those too" in regard to Iowa and New Hampshire then, as I said, he needs to focus on doing that. You know that a couple weeks ago his campaign had to tamp down and walk back the rhetoric from his campaign about how Joe can afford to lose those states because he has South Carolina in the bag. Not the way to win.
But Joe can arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic any way he wants. He is still going to lose the nomination so I am not going to micro-analyze some things.
Also, I don't agree that Biden is doing well in the early states. Warren is already tied or ahead of Joe in a couple polls for Iowa and New Hampshire. I know that as a binary thinker you look at only one factor but I look at other factors as well- especially trajectory. And where Joe and Poco are close or tied but Joe's numbers are trending down but hers are trending up, that is not a good look for Joe, and not a good statistical look either.
Whatever though. Joe's teeth and brain may fall out in the next debate, and the impact of Hunter-gate is not fully reflected in the polls. Take home message though is that he has to focus on a national campaign and not be thinking about getting incentuous with Stacy Abrams to win more where he is already winning. Again, Warren may need to do something aggressive and stupid in South Carolina but that is not Joe's problem.
Last edited:
