Christine Bagley, 65, said Warren had been her top choice but described her as “a bit of a bulldog,” saying Buttigieg made her feel more “hopeful and inspired.” Lois Luddy, 66, had also considered Warren but said she was too “bellicose.”
“It's always fight, fight, fight, fight, fight,” Luddy said of Warren, repeating the word for emphasis. “Someone needs to tell her to calm down.”
Bagley shot back: “Would you say that if she wasn't a woman?”
Warren has an electoral problem in Buttigieg. Her campaign had planned to face off against Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her top progressive rival, and known quantities like former Vice President Joe Biden. But it’s the 38-year-old former mayor who is playing the role of spoiler, most immediately complicating Warren’s path in early-nominating states like Iowa and New Hampshire.
These were the states in which Warren was supposed to build momentum, propelled by her base of white, college-educated liberals. She was supposed to prove that she was the person who could unite the Democratic Party and demonstrate the energy behind ridding Washington of corruption.
Instead, after Buttigieg led the attacks on Warren over her health care plan that began in October, he is snaring her primary voters — including women of Warren’s generation like Bagley and Luddy — with a platitude-heavy message of uniting the country and restoring democracy.
It has already worked in Iowa. In the run-up to the caucuses, Warren's campaign highlighted her ability to become voters’ second choice — the supposed evidence of her status as the Democratic “unity candidate.” But as results trickled in from the state, it was Buttigieg who gained the most from the so-called second alignment, as supporters of candidates such as Biden, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and businessman Andrew Yang shifted to Buttigieg when their top choice failed to cross the viability threshold.
With the New Hampshire primary just days away, and another Democratic debate Friday night in Manchester, some of Warren’s own supporters are begging her to attack Buttigieg directly, as she did in the December debate, which became known for their memorable “wine cave” clash over high-dollar fundraising.
Their increasingly dire warnings contrast with the message being projected by Warren's campaign staff and the candidate herself, who has sought to maintain an even-keeled optimism even after her third-place finish, behind a progressive whose supporters rarely budge and a moderate millennial with the pedigree of her former students at Harvard.
Buttigieg has been aided by the concept of electability, which has hung over the primary season and can disadvantage women running for office in particular. Warren’s allies, who have seen her frequently faced with questions about whether a woman can win, believe Buttigieg has been treated with kid gloves by journalists who see themselves in a 38-year-old man more than a 70-year-old woman.
Buttigieg is himself a historic candidate, as the first openly gay man to mount a major campaign for president. In the early states, he and Warren are competing for more than delegates and donors — they are fighting to build enthusiasm around their barrier-breaking candidacies that can later inspire voters in more diverse states.
“He’s new. He’s fresh,” said Michael Smith, 63, who came to see Buttigieg this week in New Hampshire. Smith compared Buttigieg’s candidacy to John F. Kennedy’s in 1960. “The public always wants what’s next.”
For those who view politics through an ideologically rigid lens, the overlap between Warren and Buttigieg’s voting base can be confounding. Warren has campaigned on progressive promises like free college, the cancellation of student debt and a “Medicare for All” health care system — all things Buttigieg has vocally rejected.
But many voters in Iowa and New Hampshire don’t see a contradiction. They seem less concerned with what specifically Warren is proposing; to them, the value of her many policy proposals is that they project her competence and readiness for the Oval Office.
And Warren and Buttigieg overlap among voters whose choice of a candidate hinges on a simple question: Which candidate seems the smartest?
“They’re both savvy,” said Ann Vitti, 56, who attended Buttigieg’s veterans event.
Vitti, who lives in California and traveled to New Hampshire to see the candidates, said she was choosing between Warren and Buttigieg and planned to vote for whomever seemed to have a better chance of winning.
“Policies can change, but you can’t get smarts overnight,” Vitti said.
Iowa has propelled Buttigieg into pole position for Vitti’s eventual vote, and she may not be alone. He is in a statistical tie with Sanders in two polls of New Hampshire voters that were conducted in the aftermath of the Iowa caucuses.
At their only public appearances Thursday, Buttigieg and Warren each tried to frame the Iowa results in their respective interests.
Warren focused on the close delegate count, and said the data showed a bunched-up “top three” — a phrase clearly meant to draw attention to Biden’s distant fourth-place showing.
“It’s a tight, three-way race at the top,” Warren said at a stop in Keene, New Hampshire. “We know the three of us will be dividing up most of the delegates coming out of Iowa.”
Buttigieg tried to look ahead.
“New Hampshire is New Hampshire,” he said in Merrimack. “And New Hampshire is not the kind of place to let Iowa or anybody else tell you what to do.”
There are some signs that Warren’s aides are more alert to the threat of Buttigieg than they project. Roger Lau, Warren’s campaign manager, pounced on a tweet from one of Buttigieg’s senior advisers, suggesting that it seemed to be a signal to an outside super PAC supporting Buttigieg about where it should spend money on advertising. Campaigns are not legally allowed to coordinate with outside organizations supporting them, but there is no law against publicly telegraphing the campaign’s desires.
(BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM.)
Warren’s campaign team alluded to the episode in several fundraising emails, trying to create a sense of urgency. One read, “Other candidates are leaning on megawealthy donors and super PACs to boost their campaigns’ advertising efforts — and that means, right now, we’re being outspent in New Hampshire in the critical days before the primary.”
In some ways, the campaign is catching up with where its supporters have been for months. Prominent backers of Warren have long been focused on maligning Buttigieg online, casting him as cynical, inexperienced and the embodiment of privilege.
(END OPTIONAL TRIM.)
Even after his performance in Iowa, those close to Warren have argued that Buttigieg’s path to the presidency dramatically narrows after New Hampshire, citing his lower standing in national polls and anemic status among nonwhite Democrats.
Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which is supporting Warren in the primary, reflected the campaign’s dominant viewpoint. He said that Warren would eventually supplant Buttigieg and that her strategy didn’t rely solely on New Hampshire.
“Pete loses support when voters learn that his campaign is fueled by big-money donors who love that he refuses to challenge power — and when they learn how nonexistent his support is with voters of color,” Green said. “Democrats will lose to Donald Trump again if we don’t have a candidate with an inspiring economic populist and racial justice message that wins over swing voters, motivates our diverse base, and excites women voters who were key to victory in 2017, 2018 and 2019. That’s clearly Warren, not Pete.”
Warren’s numbers with minority communities are not robust, according to national polls. She enjoys support from prominent black and Latino surrogates and activists, including Julián Castro, a former Cabinet secretary and presidential candidate, and Rep. Ayanna S. Pressley of Massachusetts, a campaign co-chair.
But Warren had 10% support from black voters in the latest Morning Consult national poll — behind Biden, Sanders and former Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York. Buttigieg was at 2%.
(STORY CAN END HERE. OPTIONAL MATERIAL FOLLOWS.)
Buttigieg’s Iowa showing has also helped him with donors. His campaign has announced raising more than $2.7 million this week from 63,841 donations. Warren, who has not released her post-Iowa fundraising totals, recently canceled more than $300,000 worth of advertising reservations in Nevada and South Carolina.
“I just always want to be careful about how we spend our money,” Warren said in New Hampshire when asked about the cancellation.
Some undecided voters in New Hampshire, like Laurel Devino, 60, said the Iowa results would have no bearing on her eventual vote.
“That was such a hot mess,” said Devino, who attended Warren’s event in Derry this week.
Others, like the two women at Buttigieg’s event, said the die had been cast — and Buttigieg had won them over.
Right before he began to speak, Bagley asked Luddy again: Would she be as annoyed if a male candidate talked about “fighting” like Warren?
Luddy paused. “I think so,” she said.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times .