:+1:

I'm with you. 38-42% base that hasn't withered much is pretty impressive considering all the stuff that has come up.

Yeah I am a very moderate but still life long blue democrat and have been my whole life which includes pro gun control, pro choice, pro gov regulation, pro global trade, pro legal immigration, pro environment pro woman and minorities but also pro military, pro police and pro business. I have been telling my more further left leaning democratic friends we need to be realistic and except we will need to curb our expectations in order to get the Senate or WH in 2020.
The Kentucky governors race should be a sign to look at moderate presidential candidates or for the more “progressive” candidates to come more to center left.

But are they more Pro Trump or anti Democrat?

I know a single issue pro life voter that hates Trump but will vote for him anyways because the alternative is a pro choice democrat.

I know dozens (maybe hundreds) of these.



Related: polls in the last few days are indicating Trump is doing well in swing states against everyone but Biden. Duh. I haven't seen the demographic breakdowns of the votes in flux, but it's almost gotta be heavily white suburbanites, no?

I mean that happens in most elections, does it not? Look at 2008 and Barack Obama. Although Obama was quite masterful in using soaring progressive rhetoric with moderate policy positions.

I have full faith that Warren can focus on center left items (aka, how to deal with the opioid crisis, how big business have screwed over poor white conservatives as well as liberals, etc). I don't know if Biden can talk about progressive ideals for his moderate policy positions enough to get the base riled up.

I refuse to get used to it. This is not and will not be the new normal and will do my part in helping to prevent it.

Unless someone is rich, a racist, a fascist or russian, or all 4 of those things, there literally is zero he has in common with the rest of us. If it takes Biden to get rid of the criminal currently occupying the white house, count me in.

I think Biden has the best chance if the Dems come out to support him. I know a few Republicans who would hold their nose and vote for him if he ran. I can't see those people voting for Warren or Sanders.

It's an interesting situation to watch. If the democrats would fully support Biden, I think he would win as he would get the most "aggravated Trump supporters". Warren would probably garner more passionate democrat support - but would that be enough without much Trump crossover? After the left held their nose and picked Hillary in 2016, there may be some backlash to doing the same with Biden. But, I think had Hillary's policies been represented by a guy named John Doe - that person would have killed Trump. There just was so much negativity with her from all the boogeyman articles and her history.

This is the huge question for me. Was Hillary historically disliked because the GOP has nearly perfected its campaign/media machine so that any prominent Democratic candidate will end up historically disliked?

Or was Hillary particularly disliked because she was Hillary?

I think people are still discounting the effect of Bill Clinton and his presidency on Hillary's run. The legacy of Bill's presidency gets worse and worse the further removed from it we are, and the prospect of another Clinton being (relatively) fiscally & socially conservative while making vague progressive promises wasn't very endearing to lots of folks.

The problem with Hillary is that she was in the public eye so long - she ended up generating so many negatives on both the left and the right. The right associated her with Bill and their generated scandals, while the left saw her veer more to the middle over her time in congress. I don't know that her situation could be replicated by another candidate.

The one thing I wonder (and it is a shame this even has to be mentioned), but were a lot of the on the fence Trump voters in 16 (esp in the south) a little hesitant to vote for a woman? You would hope this isn't the case, but I think if you are breaking a stereotype you need to have a bunch of charisma (a la Obama). I haven't seen Warren enough to know if she has that, but Hillary certainly didn't.

Women are perceived differently than men for possessing the same traits. They get called things like "abrasive", "bitchy", "bossy", "frigid", "shrill" for traits that wouldn't even be noticed in a man, or would be considered positive traits for men. They get critiqued on their appearance and clothes a lot more. And I'm not even talking about the wildly disparate ways Hillary's actual misdeeds were portrayed v. far worse conduct from men, from both parties.

Elizabeth Warren sure doesn't seem like the woman who can overcome those things, but I think that's true that being in the public eye for a lot less time really helps not having to fight against those decades of unflattering portrayals.

It should also we be noted that Hillary, with her lack of charisma, was able to win the popular vote by several million.

True, but winning the popular vote doesn't mean a thing if you lose Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania like Hillary did. You can win New York by 3 million votes and still lose the election if you don't make inroads in those states. And those are the states where Warren relating and being charismatic in the eyes of the voters will matter.

But saying people won't vote for X is clearly undercut when more people voted for X than Y.

I would say it's more based on area. I don't think it's an issue at all in the east or west coast - but it may play a part in parts of the South and Midwest. Again, you can't know for sure - but it's another variable in the "should we go for Warren or Biden" decision the democrats have to make. Maybe it doesn't mean a thing, it's just something that I was worried about in relation to getting rid of Trump.

Genuinely curious here, but, do people get offended if a presidential candidate doesn't visit their state? Which would lead them to not vote for that candidate. Personally, with the internet, I don't care if they come to my state or not, I can keep tabs on them via the 'ol interwebs.

Being from North Dakota, the answer is, no, because nobody ever goes to North Dakota, and because North Dakota was never in doubt for said candidate. We got used to nobody really caring what we thought. It's never really crossed my mind as something to get upset about.

Right on. That's pretty interesting what you say about no one caring what North Dakotans(?) think. I admit that, I don't often think of what goes on in that state or many other states. Not in any kind of malicious way, I think it's more I don't really know anyone from there or have any association.

Any candidate should be concerned/care about all 50 states and US territories in my opinion. It's interesting because one of the reasons I've heard that Hillary didn't win Wisconsin is because she never visited it during her campaign, which led me to my question.

Eh, I don't think it's the anti-Trump side that needs to get used to the new reality. The latest round of elections are yet more evidence of that. In literally every single case I've looked at - the '18 midterms, special election after special election after special election, etc. - Democrats are doing better than they did in '16, Republicans are doing worse. There isn't one shred of evidence that I see pointing the other way or even neutrally. This fear of Trump winning re-election is frankly hilarious to me. It could happen, but it would require something major to shift from where we are now. None of the Democratic candidates is nearly as unpopular as Hillary was at this time last cycle. I just don't see any good reason at all not to consider a Democratic presidential victory in '20 to be a 90-95% or higher likelihood.

I listen to "The Daily" podcast on what went into that recent poll that showed the swing states still favoring Trump. They definitely found the perception of Warren falls into the "unlikable" troupe that many woman candidates do. They said the survey showed all the women running actually where considered "unlikable", with Warren the most. What struck me was that that opinion is mostly among other women. Even my wife says she finds her unlikable.




You are not looking at the polling in areas that really matter. That NYT poll shows that Trump would win the election today, and quite possibly by a larger Electoral College number than the first time. The fact that he could lose California and New York by a wider margin means nothing.

Polling this far out historically doesn't mean jack squat though. That's esp. true of state polls, because you need a significant amount of them over a period of time to get meaningful data, and that's just not something that's done except in the run-up to the actual election. One poll on it's own is almost completely meaningless. When you have things like the recent results in Kentucky and Virginia … are those not places that matter? Does Pennsylvania not matter, where multiple seats were flipped? Does Ohio not matter, where Democrats nearly won a district that went for Trump by 11 points in 2016? Why are there so many more Republicans retiring than Democrats? All the reliable indicators point in the same direction.

Bloomberg keeping his options open to be on the primary ballots.

PredicitIt bettors jumped him up to a tie with Sanders, behind only Buttigieg, Biden, and Warren.

100% correct. A year before the 2016 election Clinton lead the GOP field by a 50-32 margin.

A Year Out, Ignore General Election Polls | FiveThirtyEight

I heard that the dems lost 1100 state legislature seats during Obamas presidency. Trump has lost 300 so far. Its interesting but understandable. People dont vote when they have who they wannt in power and the other side who doesnt have the leader comes out and votes.

Dems gained over 300 just last November. I'm not sure what the final total was for this election. Dems saw unprecedented loses under Obama and Trump is outpacing him so far.

This is the quintessential truth of politics.

This is true, but only part of the story. The '18 midterms were not normal midterm losses - they were significantly larger than that. You'd expect Democrats to get a bump in special elections being out of power … a bump that would typically be half, at most, of what they've actually gotten. There's a valid point you are making here but it doesn't come close to explaining what we're seeing, across the board.

He is the "anti-Sanders/Warren" spoiler. If either of them win the nomination, expect him to run third party. The billionaires are going to protect their money, even if it takes re-electing Trump to do so.

If Dems have an attitude that they have already won, then we are looking at 2016 all over again.

Hillary was targeted by the Right wing media for 25 years. After that long, stuff began to stick with time even if you can prove they were lies. They've been trying to fire the same up with Biden but it's only been a few months to a year and people generally like Joe. All they managed with Obama was that one preacher who I can't think of and that got nowhere either.

At the end of the day, the most likeable candidate usually wins. Just look at the last 30 years:

92: Clinton > Bush
96: Clinton > Dole
00: W > Gore
04: W > Kerry
08: Obama > McCain
12: Obama > Romney
16: Trump > Hillary

In 16, it was more that Hillary was much more "unlike-able" than Trump (more than Trump was super likeable). My fear with Warren is it will be like 2016 all over again where she won't have the likability to unseat Trump. Biden, on the other hand, would easily be more likeable than Trump.

I think Warren is far more likeable than Trump (I mean I think she's more likable than Sanders or Harris). Biden reminds me of Dole or even Romney, tbh.

Well that's a scary thought.

I think Warren is the most likeable between those three, but I think Biden is more relatable/likeable than Warren. He's always come off as more of a "working man" than Dole or especially Romney (who came off as somewhat elite).

I'm also not sure how likeability works with this Trump phenomenon either. I can't see how anyone would find him likeable at all. I'm really not sure how he was viewed that way, but it seems like he was by many people. I just don't know if Warren can overcome that comparison, but I'm pretty sure Biden can.

Dole was far more impressive than a working man, though. Dude was an American military hero who then came and trying to make the country better through the political spectrum. (Well, so did McCain, but compared to Obama anyone was going to seen as uncool or not as likeable).

Nah by the time Dole was going for POTUS he was a relic.

Yeah I think for the moderate and right leaning voter it 8s a toss up at best between Warren and Trump but Biden is easily more like able than Trump .

And Biden is what?

Dole was 3 years younger than Biden is now when the election happened in 1996.

Again, I think it's the comparison. Against a younger, hipper Bill Clinton - Dole came off as a relic. He really didn't play well on TV and looked like your crabby grandpa. Biden is old, but he comes off as more relatable and not nearly as crabby as Dole appeared. Plus, he's going up against Trump - not Clinton or Obama (prob the two most likeable candidates we've had in a while).

That's an interesting narrative but it doesn't really fit with the facts. Her favorability fluctuated considerably while Bill was president, and was as high as it had ever been while she served as Secretary of State, nearly two decades after beginning her time as FLOTUS. The low points of her career have both come during her campaigns for President. That isn't an accident.


I think you're generally right that the most likeable candidate wins, but every bit of polling I've seen from '16 indicates Trump was even more unlikeable than Hillary. The two most unlikeable presidential nominees in modern history, but Trump was significantly worse. That's why there were so many late-breaking undecideds. For other, debatable reasons, it was an exception to the normal rule and it wasn't the more likeable candidate that won.

HRC was more unlikable in the places that mattered. Trump was more unlikable in the other places that didnt matter as much. Thus, HRC wins the popular vote and Trump wins the Electoral College. And we know what matters more. And guess what is going to happen in 2020?

The Dems have not put up anyone that gets people buzzing. They NEED an Obama type, not a HRC type. Shoot, they have HRC in Biden and Warren and Sanders, old white people. That doesnt ignite the Dems.

I think Warren and Sanders at least offer platforms that are likeable & motivating to much of the Dem base, whereas Hillary practically trotted out "more of the same?" with a half-interested shrug.

Biden seems to have borrowed Hillary's playbook and hopes he can kind of coast into the nomination by not committing to anything and playing Devil's advocate to everybody else's platform, and he'll bother figuring out his own platform when he gets there. In that case I will agree with you, that seems like a horrible strategy if you're trying to maximize Dem turnout. I guess it's an effective strategy for NOT electrifying the Republican base, but that also seems like playing to lose.

To which I simply ask again; why did that pro-Trump advantadge not show up in minimizing the '18 midterm losses to normal historical levels, and/or in ANY of the special elections since '16, including the recent ones in traditional GOP strongholds? If your stated narrative is correct, an answer must be found for this question which would seem to contradict it.

I thinkit has to do with comfort. That may not be the right word. But Dems are going to come out and vote when they hate the gop president, just as gop voters are going to come out and vote when there is a dem as president.

Its a matter of who is in charge. We hate your guy so the masses come out and the party in charge voters dont.

Sure, but again - and you don't have to answer the question if you don't want to ofc - that's already been covered multiple times. See 'normal historical levels' literally in the post you quoted. The point is that what we have been repeatedly seen is beyond typical out-of-power angst. What accounts for the rest of it?

Think Nixon/Kennedy for a comp.

Dole may have been younger than Biden, but Biden wouldn't be running against a fella in his 30s or 40s.

How old you are (no more septuagenarians) gets exacerbated when you're running against someone significantly younger.

Put another way, if age matters that much to the electorate after 4 years of Trump, you'd expect Buttigieg to wipe the floor with Trump. He's reasonably moderate, telegenic, and much younger than Grampa McTwitterShitter.

But the fact that Biden/Warren/Sanders are the Democratic frontrunners and Buttigieg, Booker, etc are just hanging back waiting for that pair to publicly shit themselves suggests that age isn't a disqualifer to the electorate in the same way it was in 1960 or 1996.

So, probably, the most legit takeaway is that when voting for President, Americans both think unusually strongly about "likability" and if there's a clear difference there, it's a major factor separating candidates in that race.

The same probably (in my view) goes for the notion of "deserves it," which I think should be phrased more eloquently than that. Not the same thing as "qualified" but rather as some sort of blend of merit and "the sort of person you want to see win the game" in the same context we feel that way about sports or reality shows.


I think Biden has a thin veneer of likability, but the longer you focus on him, the clearer it becomes that it doesn't run deep. Similarly, the GOP knows that they can use corruption angles to try to undermine his "deserving" rating - thus all the drama around family ties, etc. That's a parallel to the whole Benghazi and Foundation and emails angles that effectively converted an immensely "qualified" Hillary Clinton into someone that most persuadable voters had hesitations saying she "deserved" to win.

I think you're correct.

Biden is strange because he seems like a genuinely likable guy, but moderates on both sides seem to like him far more than liberal dems.

I also still very strongly believe he's the conventional Dem candidate that the GOP has become experts at attacking. Combine that with the fact that campaigning definitely isn't his strength and I see his campaign collapsing on a stage with Trump. As far as candidate strength goes I see him similar to Kerry and Hunter Biden very well could be his Swift Boat.

This is what I am talking about. The billionaires aren't giving up one red cent without a fight.

Scoop: In a private phone call earlier this year, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos asked Mike Bloomberg if he’d consider running for president https://t.co/HmW1TFsNpv

— Jason Del Rey (@DelRey) November 9, 2019

Yeah I don't get this at all. Why enter the DEMOCRATIC race at all when you're not eligible for the first few races.

Why not just declare your 3rd part intentions from the start?

I think Bloomberg recognizes that a 3rd party bid gets Trump back in; I don’t think he risks that. I think he is worried that Biden runs out of gas, and either Sanders or Warren loses straight up. So, get in as last ditch effort to avoid catastrophe.

He'll be in all of the states' primaries if he keeps meeting the deadlines from here on out, Alabama just had the first deadline out of all the states.

He did say he was going to focus on Super Tuesday rather than New Hampshire/Iowa, but he will still be on those early states' ballots assuming he doesn't change his mind in the next few weeks.

I think he knows it would be preferable to win the Democratic nomination and beat Trump. I think he will go third party, even if that means Trump likely wins, if Warren or Sanders wins the nomination.

Have no idea who this guy is and why he thinks he stands a chance but okay, the more the merrier.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/polit...020/index.html

Why? The biggest problem this field has is it is too large. I don't get how these late-comers think they can win.

I think that the fact that there are no runaway leaders tying things off up top is the reason why people are still getting in. They believe that there's still a chance to break out of the mold, and they didn't have to spend all the early money that the other candidates have to this point. I'm just guessing, but that has to come into play.

I don't know if Patrick thinks he can win or if he just sees it as a step towards something else, maybe a VP or Cabinet job or a TV gig.

I remember when Patrick was considered a rising star... like 20 years ago. That's literally the only thing I remember about him.

Might as well be Patrick Starfish.

Who would be an exciting late entry? Michelle Obama?

Patrick is no in to win. He's in to attack dog Warren so she gets hurt but the other possible candidates don't get the blowback for attacking her.

She might be short on policy, but she will really get the pro and anti-obama crowds out.

Just joking. I agree with you. I am somewhat like Bloomberg late entrance but he's got $ to self fund and all things held equal, would prefer a business man to a politician (Trump notwithstanding).

Hillary obviously!

I feel for her, I'm sure she needs closure.

I voted for Hillary, but... DEAR GOD, NO.

Chelsea Clinton?

I don't think she has shown interest in politics much. If she is interested, she should start now while she has Bill (Hillary is debatable) to get herself elected to something and build up her credentials.

Yeah I agree, but it would be "exciting".

Oprah.

It would be interesting if that is so. He had a long conversation with her before he entered the race. It would be interesting if it the call was "this isn't personal, but I am about to rip you to shreds."



I was just listening to David Plouffe's podcast, and they where saying Warren has by far the biggest ground game presence in the Super-Tuesday states. I also just saw an article saying she has the largest staff level in Texas than any other candidate. She is taking some lumps right now, and has sort of plateaued if not dropped. But she is going to be tough to beat going forward.

That would be exciting and she can self fund.

I did a casual search and did not find this rationale, would be interested in reading more about it if you have a link.

So what's his end game? To hurt Warren so some other candidate would think him for VP/Cabinet and/or hurt Warren so someone less "socialist" gets elected and he doesn't have to pay all those taxes?

Politico seems to believe the person most likely to be hurt by Patrick's entry in to the race is Joe Biden:

How Deval Patrick could torpedo Joe Biden - POLITICO

More, I think she wins walking away. She just doesn't want to do it.

Donald Trump vs. Oprah for President seems like something from a Watchmen like comic book. Our reality has become a dystopian comic, guys!

My speculation. Patrick is hooked into Wall St. And I imagine he's been involved in a fair amount of "Warren would be horrible" conversations. And his base is geographically the same as hers.

So it seems logical that his main motivation in getting in is to save the party/country from Warren. Sure, he'd love to be president, too. But if he can knock her out, that's a win.

Twitter was a buzz last night about an Obama speech that seemed to be a warning against Sanders and Warren's visions. It looks like they took certain statements and ran with them a biit out of context. He did say, “I don’t take it as a criticism when people say, ‘Hey, that’s great Obama did what he did, and now we want to do more.’ I hope so. That’s the whole point,” and “I want proposals that are bolder with respect to reducing inequality and giving people more opportunity and allowing us to make more investments in our infrastructure and our education systems and others."


So, not totally selling out the more left leaning candidates. He did warn, though.

For example: pic.twitter.com/FsqT4zL1Hg

— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) November 16, 2019

I don't see Obama's failings as having to do with policies. Where he failed it was because he didn't recognize or accept the degree to which the GOP will not work with any Dem admin. In terms of process, the Dems need to get much more radical in order to combat the GOP.

Unfortunately the Dem primary candidates either don't have a plan on how to use process to their advantage or are still willing to believe that a phone call or a round of golf will suddenly make the GOP reasonable. Meanwhile Dems in Congress are generally more concerned with individual power than with institutional advantage.

What little I've seen of the Dem debates is just candidates screaming promises. It tells me nothing. Anybody on the internet can tell me what they'd like the government of the U.S. to look like. I'd like to vote on effectiveness, but I'm almost as a total loss on how to evaluate that. Certainly none of the candidates are interested in telling me how exactly they're going to accomplish anything, or what battles they're willing to not fight or concede to make other progress.

An unskilled and unreasonable politician candidate promising 10/10 won't accomplish as much as a skilled and reasonable politician candidate promising 5/10.

I don't think you can call many of the candidates unskilled and inexperienced. Maybe Mayor Pete and Yang. The rest of the field have been effective legislatures that know how to work in Washington. It is also pretty silly to think they would tell you what they are willing to give up on. They will all have to do some give and take, but no one running for office is going to say "but this isn't really important to me."

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

No major legislation is happening in the current political environment without complete control over congress. It doesn't matter if you're Biden, Warren, or even Obama. So there's really no point in discussing how you're going to sell McConnell on Medicare for all or gun control. He's has almost single-handedly destroyed bipartisan legislation in this country.

The ACA was an incredible accomplishment by Obama, but even that was gutted in order to get it passed and there's zero chance similar legislation would pass right now.

Right - so 95% of what the candidates talk about, which is their ideal legislative visions, is completely irrelevant to anything. I hear about someone favoring one candidate over another because they like their health-plan more, but, that's also completely irrelevant.

I though Obama was a great president, I'd vote for him again. But I thought, and still think, his initial campaign was completely dishonest. He just promised a lot. That was the strategy. I remember posting about it here at the time. I remember an exacerbated Hillary Clinton trying to get this across at one of the primary debates. I don't buy the narrative that he was just too dumb to realize that the Republicans would oppose him.

There's just very little reality set forth in these debates and commercials and campaigns. I have no idea how any of them would actually serve in that role.

Ya, I guess that's true, I just wish there was a way to figure out what their priorities would be. I have an idea on some of them but it's just a best guess. Everybody just promises all the things on every issue. It's not real.

Presidents do things besides sign legislation passed by Congress. And I don't think these candidates differ much on what they'd sign and what they'd veto. The moderate candidates aren't stopping whatever scaled-down legislation a theatrical left-controlled congress gets through. So what is the real difference between the candidates? I guess the ways they exercise the powers of the executive branch, how they represent the United States in relations with other countries, and the way they take part and try to influence the outcome of the legislative battles. Not how much free stuff we're gonna definitely gonna get if we send them $20/month.

The one who I feel like drifts into honesty occasionally is Yang. But like you said, he has one of the weakest track records as far as demonstrating an ability to serve in that role. But, I'm not 100% sure that matters. Trump has been able to do a lot of damage with no experience at all. He also over-promised and duped his supporters about what he'd be able to do, but he's found ways to forward his agenda.

So ya, I'm completely lost on who to support. There's 3-4 I'm drawn to, but I'm not sure if it's for reasons that actually translate to being a good president. I can find a random redditor that matches my policy opinions exactly, but that doesn't mean I'd want them to be president.

This came a bit out of nowhere Friday. Everyone could tell Pete was getting some momentum, but not to this level. Now all weekend, all guns have turned on Pete. I expect the debate this week will be heavy on the Pete-bashing.


New Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom IOWA poll
Buttigieg 25%
Warren 16%
Biden 15%
Sanders 15%
Klobuchar 6%
Everyone else at or below 3 percent https://t.co/NfZakqdCKv

— Zach Montellaro (@ZachMontellaro) November 17, 2019

Yeah the latest polls out of Iowa have been really interesting concerned Buttigieg. One does wonder what is the reason for the bump. You can see Harris is "below 3%" - did her support go almost all to Buttigieg?

He's in the thick of it in New Hampshire, but South Carolina is still BIG on Biden.

Come on Joe...seriously???

Joe Biden Is Out Here Calling Weed a 'Gateway Drug' in 2019

Wow, that is his 3rd strike with me, though he still gets my vote if it is between him and Trump and I guess we wait 4 more years for someone with some common sense to legalize it.

Since Biden is such a weak frontrunner overall, some moderates are probably looking around to see who else can stop Warren/Sanders.

I don't think anyone told Joe that pro legalization is a fairly moderate stance in 2019.

Biden is STILL very much in front of national polls. Buttigieg is only really surging in Iowa. Granted he's been campaigning there, so maybe he's really good one on one which is pushing him up.

Even in the few national polls that show Biden in the 20s show Buttigieg with 9% at highest. It's generally Sanders and Warren that benefit from Biden in the 20s rather than the 30s in the national polls.

Did one of those that asked who you are more aligned with. Came out to be Biden (no surprise) and Yang (surprise).

I would like to see Yang survive to the very end. Some new ideas and breath of fresh air.

I wasn't going to vote for him the Primaries anyway, but, how can you be this out of touch and it's almost the 3rd decade of the 21st century? I wonder if he thinks leaded gasoline is still perfectly fine and heavy metal music brings out the devil...

Same here, if it's him or trump, it will be Joe with no hesitation and hope that we can primary him out if he decides to run for a second term.


I imagine all of his campaign advisers are no younger than 75. This is super tone deaf and legalization is supported by the majority of Americans.

Two-thirds of Americans support marijuana legalization | Pew Research Center:
"Majorities of Millennials (those born between 1981 and 1997), Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980) and Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) say the use of marijuana should be legal."
"Members of the Silent Generation (born between 1928 and 1945) continue to be the least supportive of legalization: Only 35% favor legalizing marijuana, while 64% are opposed." ...Biden was born in 42

tl;dr - 67% of Americans support legalization of marijuana

Another one bites the dust

Wayne Messam suspends his Democratic primary campaign - Vox

WTF is up with Klobuchar shaking?

Klobuchar plays the gender card

*yaaaaaaaaaawwn*

Just tuned in

Mayor Pete with a very strong answer there with several good lines including "I don't even play golf" and how the fighting in Washington looks small from where his community sits.

Democrats like to bring up the fact that women earn less than men, but don't point out that they do different jobs.

90% of job fatalities are men, but democrats never talk about bridging that gender gap.

You'd have a point if women weren't consistently paid less when they do the same jobs.

I don't understand this comment at all.

Yang with the line of the night.