Which is probably why Trump has been targeting him since he entered the race early in the this year.

I am going to correct myself. Stacey Abrams did say in August that she would be open to be VP. I thought I remembered a denial closer to when she met with Biden before he officially announced.

It is the open question. Obama's support among the older African-Americans jumped up once he won Iowa. They needed to see him win to believe he could. If Joe has a really bad Iowa and New Hampshire, will that change?

But who's going to take that mantle? Obama was able to jump because African-American voters WANTED Obama to win, but didn't think he could. Winning Iowa helped convince them.

Harris and Booker, I think, were hoping for the same thing. But they've both seen their Iowa numbers not move.

African-American voters aren't going for Buttigieg or Warrren. They maaay go Sanders, but I think older AA voters are turned off by him (or his fans rather) from 2016.

Biden vs. Trump. Ugh

This is a fascinating article about Biden and his history as a stutterer:

Joe Biden's Stutter, and Mine - The Atlantic

The author makes a compelling case that a lot of times when people think Biden make mental lapses, it seems to him (a stutterer as well) that Biden is trying to deal with stuttering, either through circumlocution or other means.

I'm going to stop you right there. I don't know what your particular axe to grind is with the Catholic Church but right there alone in that statement shows that you have no interest in what the Catholic Church truly is about - only in mocking it. The Catholic Church does not have a "current" stance on abortion. If you want to read about it I will refer you to the following.

Respect for Unborn Human Life: The Church's Constant Teaching


You do realize that God does punish, right? That's why Catholics believe hell exists - it is an eternal punishment. Its not a lottery that determines whether you end up there - its an eternal punishment handed down by God just as heaven is the eternal reward and purgatory a place of cleansing for entrance to heaven.

That's a difficult concept for some people to reconcile. If God is supposed to be the source of all that is good then how could He wipe out people? What about "thou shall not kill"? Doesn't that make this whole thing a sham???

Well, it was always as a punishment and as a last resort. Look at the words you quoted "worshiping other gods", "idolaters", "unfaithful"....these were people that turned away from God so wouldn't it make sense that God as the supreme being would then punish them for doing so?

If you want biblical verses look at Genesis, chapter 18. "Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked?" and Abraham begins bargaining for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. Every time he asks if he can find only X number of righteous people the Lord responds that He will not destroy it and of course not even ten such people exist and it is destroyed.

God destroying cities as a punishment has nothing to do with abortion or murder or anything else.

Now you can think all of that is a bunch of nonsense and I respect that and I'm not going to debate each quote you dug up and try and convince you otherwise. The only reason I bothered to reply at all is to point out that the issue of abortion is not a fly by night thing the Church just worked up so that it could become part of the GOP machine and oppose Democrats nor is it somehow an invalid belief of the Church because the Bible talks about God punishing people - even babies. The Church has been opposed to abortion since way before our country was republican vs democrat - it wasn't just a ploy to make sure Hillary didn't get elected.

Just saw a commercial for Bloomberg. It was a Bloomberg for President 2020.

Bloomberg vs. Biden vs Trump? Ugh

When are the baby boomers going to fade away?

That's true of the Catholic church, although I would argue about how much priority it was given, but that isn't true about evangelical protestants. After Roe there were plenty of statements from evangelicals rejecting the idea of life beginning at conception. Even the head of the Southern Baptists was far from a current pro-life position.

Biden and Bloomberg are Silent Generation. Trump is a Baby Boomer (but just).

But who votes? Who are these candidates targeted for?

Baby boomers.

And they are old. At the rate we are going we will have a sitting president diw of natural causes while in office.

If Trump is re-elected it's more likely to happen than not.

Bloomberg has absolutely zero chance of winning, but between Sanders, Trump, Biden, and Warren we're certain to have someone over 70 as President in 2021.

yay?

So Im watching a Christmas movie on Fox. Commercial break. A presidential commercial again. But this time it is Tom Steyer. Who the hell is Tom Steyer? All I know is he said he is another billionaire running for president.

Did a little research on Steyer.

I want your opinion.

He could be a hero in a number of different ways, but he'd rather spend his money on a no chance presidential run. And his platform is full of stupid and unworkable ideas.

Also did some research on Tom Steyer...

He gets high on you
And the space he invades, he gets by on you.

A modern-day warrior.

A less like-able Ross Perot.

I saw a Bloomberg ad yesterday as well. It was about as bland as you can get.

Biden called a voter in Iowa a damn liar and challenged him to a push up contest.

This whole new reality is getting hard to grasp.

Next challenge up- I can fit more girls into a telephone booth than you can!


:lol:

I'm not a Biden fan, but I don't think Biden comes across bad in it. The questioner is parroting Fox News stuff (the damned liar part) and then says he's too old (the push up, to a run, IQ context part). Like if Bernie said it, half the internet would be cheering.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

It is obvious the guy was trying to get a rise out of Biden, and while it is easy to say he should have taken the high road, I think it is absolutely laughable the MAGA crown is skewering him for it. Trump literally treats almost every person he talks to like shot and his base spins it as him "telling it like it is" but when Biden does it he's unhinged. The hypocrisy with these people never ceases to amaze me.

I was listening to David Plouffe today interview the head of the Bloomberg campaign. Their plan is very interesting. They are concentrating on the states that come after the early 4, and in all the battleground states. They (rightly) point out that the states following the early weeks are more populous, and mean a lot more delegate wise. Also, these states along with the battleground states are where Trump is already spending millions of dollars. Trump has a huge advantage over whoever comes out the winner of the Democratic primaries, because he has been running a general campaign ever since he was elected. He is dropping general election spending levels in those targeted battleground states, which is why his poll numbers there are still strong.

I don't like Bloomberg, but I think his plan has some merit. His manager pointed out that the DNC should change the order of the primaries so the likely battleground states are rotated as the early primaries. How much better would it be if the money and attention being spent in Iowa and New Hampshire was being spent instead in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Didn't Guliani try to ignore the early states too in his ill-fated campaign run?

So I'm curious as to why the Democrats thinks a septuagenarian is their best bet at winning the election? The following are the average ages of the last 14 president's at the start of their presidency. Seven are Democrats and seven are Republicans.

Democrats - 50.6 years old (median 51)
Republicans - 62.3 years old (median 62)

Is there some evidence that suggests an older candidate will bring Democrats success?

WTF??? Can we get sanity back?

Tulsi 2020!!!

Who were the last 2 to win? I'll tell you 2 young-ish, dynamic candidates. I cant understand why the dems go for the young and the people of color. Its worked for their last 2 two term presidents. I dont even know when the last 2 term dem. Was it FDR?

Because of Trump, this election has become about electability and that usually comes down to a combination of name power and being a moderate. The Progressives want a more progressive candidate so they're keeping Sanders/Warren afloat, but it's becoming clear Biden isn't going to just lose his support.

I think in a more normal election cycle Booker would be doing much better and Buttigieg would really need to be taken seriously as a threat for the nomination.

I'm assuming you mean before Clinton.

So sort of... Kennedy/LBJ should be looked at as 2 terms, but no neither was elected twice. The same goes with Truman, who almost served two full terms, but started in April of 45 after Roosevelt's death.

I think the better point is that almost all the post-WW2 presidents/parties have been two terms which gives Trump a big advantage heading into 2020.

He's advertising like crazy already here in NY. That can't be cheap.

What there have been a number of one term presidents since world war 2 Carter,Ford,Nixon, and George H Bush.

I don't think one can count Nixon/Ford, although Nixon was elected to serve two terms (and Ford not at all).

But Guliani didn't have a tenth of the money Bloomberg is spending. That is not just advertising, either. He is setting up offices all across the states. Guilani was "Florida or die." He died.

I'm looking at party control, so FDR/Truman, Kennedy/LBJ, and Nixon/Ford all count as two terms for me. The only time a party hasn't served 8 years are Carter and Bush1.

I saw the video and good for Biden standing up to the guy! We need a fighter and for those saying Trump will kick his ass in debates this to me is a small sign he can handle himself. The ageist jokes a side from far left and moderate Republicans aside he is our only hope to get Trump out.

Ah got it and thanks.

I'm not sure it was planned, but his team has to know that Trump and the GOP media are going to portray Biden as feeble and near death, so a little feistiness is good, IMO.

Agreed.

That was Biden's best moment of the campaign I think.

Not putting up with the bullshit makes Biden look stronger in my mind. It was one of the things I liked about Trump early on, calling it like it is.

The other side not taking any shit is a good thing, IMO.

I think Biden and his camp are smart enough to know he is going to have to stoop to Trumps level at times otherwise he will just get drowned out. It is pitiful where we have gotten to. The days of John McCain telling his supporters what a great guy Obama is are gone for good.

And now that we have empirical evidence that, 'calling it like it is', is an abject failure in regards to whether or not someone would be a good president, lets not make the same mistake twice please. To be fair though, a label on a pack of frozen hot dogs, 'calling it like it is', would be infinitely better than trump.

Believing Trump would be a good option as President was one of the dumbest ideas I've ever had.

I'm someone who can't stand politics because I believe all politicians are dirty. So, having someone outside the norm was appealing at first. I'm able to recognize I was pretty ignorant about Trump and the rest of it. Not many people are.

As I said at the time, I feel most mechanics are dirty as hell. I'm still taking my car to a mechanic when it has problems.

Biden is going to have to not take shit from Trump, because otherwise Trump is going to portray him as weak even while Trump is talking bullshit. I think Biden saying "you are a damned liar" to Trump's face would be amazing good for Biden. It'd also be good for Bernie or Warren to do as well.

I think he will. Last time around Hillary wasn't prepared to handle Trumps approach. Biden, or any other Dem will be ready. I also think in large part Hillary though the American people would see through Trumps antics and underestimated just how stupid close to 50% of Americans really are.

I'm not a huge fan of politics either. Mostly turned away by their antics and grandstanding and well, the voters not holding candidates to higher standards is to blame as well. I am thankful for one thing when it comes to trump though, it has revealed the weaknesses in our laws and constitution and what needs to be fixed.

And probably a big part of that is that the economy went into recession in 1980 and 1990-1991, with recessions both having their resulting peak unemployment occur within 6 months prior to the election. Both peaked at 7.8%, in July 1980 and in June 1992.

I guess this kind of intersects the primary and baseball, but WTH?

Bernie Sanders is on a crusade to save 42 minor league teams - Los Angeles Times


I get that MLB has an anti-trust exemption, but Congress wants to try to force MLB to elevate money losing extraneous minor league teams because.... "it is called the national pastime for a reason"?

Meh, strip the exemption and let MLB run their business as they see fit.

Listen to two good interviews today. Cory Booker on Pod Save America was interesting. It really laid out the issue happening right now with the lack of diversity on the top of the polls. It does just come down to older AA voters being completely in on Biden. Harris and Booker were/are both polling in the single digits among blacks. They both are doing poorly among the more liberal oriented young AA (Bernie is winning there). I really like Cory, but don't be surprised if he is out if he doesn't make the debate stage.


The second was The Daily with Bernie Sanders. It was a nice retrospective and interview about his beginnings in politics. I really think it was interesting how questions about him meeting with Daniel Ortega (Sandinista leader) during the 80's nearly shut down the interview. I think he fears being beaten up by it, and he probably should. He just seems to vulnerable because of his extreme positions.

Stuff like that, Ortega meeting, going to the USSR on his honeymoon, etc. is going to get asked constantly if he wins the primary. He better get used to it.

Not exactly on this point... but I can't help feeling that the inability of other candidates to break into the Biden hold is a function of simple "who's paying attention to this campaign" at its heart. I could be proven wrong, surely, but I feel like (in this case) a lot of black voters aren't really watching all these 12-person super-early debates, they are mostly driven by name recognition and vague associations... like "he was with Obama."

If that's true, then there easily could be a lot of black voters, and others, who show up in polling today as Biden supporters who, once they plug in and see the candidates who remain viable, and conclude "oh, geez not Biden, what else you got?" And perhaps, some of them will be asking "where are all the candidates of color?" at that point.

Not sure how you could keep it from happening, but an 18 month plus campaign cycle puts most of the attention into the hands of the small share who are deeply committed... lets Twitter Democrats sound like they are The Democrats, and that's pretty rotten (for both parties).

That is very true. "Democrat Twitter" is definitely the far left of the rest of the party. They are the most engaged, mostly college educated whites. What's funny is how they are pointing out the lack of diversity the most, but almost to the person saying, "while I didn't support Kamala..." or "While I don't support Cory...".

But Democratic Twitter is also completely flabbergasted as to why Biden continues to do well. I think older African-Americans who may not have been paying that close attention will generally trust their leaders at that point, a lot of whom have endorsed Biden. Endorsements do matter somewhat (why 538 tracks them)

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

some truth there, too, agreed

Yang qualifies! 7 now so may start paying real attention

Yang polled through!

Ugh that guy needs to go away with his used car sales shit.

I just looked at isidewith.com again and Bloomberg is at the top of my list overcoming Yang.

Warren is the bottom.

Same 87%, but Yang only has Trump below him for me

I had Booker at 93%. I'd never really thought too hard about him. I think there's some lingering anti-vegan bias inside me from my previous life. But then my logical side asks me WTF it matters what my favored candidate's diet is? Then again, Trump well-done steak and ketchup is an abomination.

My second candidate made me LOL. Marianne Williamson at 90%.

I could probably take the test a few months from now and get different results.

I'm Buttigieg and Booker at 95%. Most of the rest of the Dem field between 90 and 94. Then Bloomberg in the mid 80s and Trump at 3%.

I had Tulsi Gabbard at 78%

Then Delaney and Yang at 70%

Warren was at the bottom with 50%

My results ...

82% John Delaney (... who?)
79% Michael Bloomberg
71% Andrew Yang
68% Donald Trump (must be the immigration questions)
65% Joe Biden
65% Pete Buttigieg
58% Tulsi Gabbard
49% Cory Booker
49% Amy Klobuchar
38% Marianne Williams
34% Bernie Sanders (not feeling the Burn)
29% Elizabeth Warren
29% Julian Castro

Trump, Delaney (I agree ...who??), Bloomberg, Yang, all in the 70-80 range. Big drop off after that. Warren takes rock bottom at 20%.

Trump - 91%
Delaney - 55%
Bloomberg - 49%
Biden - 33%
Yang - 29%
Gabbard - 25%
Klobacher - 25%
Booker - 17%
Buttigieg - 17%

I think most of this stemmed from my don't spend more and tax less viewpoint. But, the %s line up with my current voting preference. Although I am not nearly 91% on Trump due to personality, integrity, morality, etc.

EDIT: The other item I find interesting, is where it pegged me on the spectrum, which is right wing, but I am definitely more libertarian in bent. I think my Pro-Life stance, my answers regarding drug use (which I answered based upon current laws pushed me far to the right), and gender answer pushed me in that direction. My answers regarding incarceration are not terribly strong, I am very Pro-Life, but it is not a major presidential issue for me as I do not see the laws changing at a Federal level any time soon, the only strong opinion was regarding transgender. I fail to see how this is a major issue and for the most part would be treated as a gay couple. In the case of a guy, he decides he wants to catch gets the op, he is a woman from now on. Girl decides she wants to pitch, gets the op, she is a guy from now on. I don't see the big issue.

I also did not drill down to the nuanced answers which in hindsight might have mitigated some of my views and would likely have moderated things a bit, maybe 5-10%.

87% Amy Klobuchar
86% Bernie Sanders
86% Julian Castro
85% Andrew Yang
85% Tulsi Gabbard
84% Elizabeth Warren
83% Marianne Willamson
83% Pete Buttigeg
82% Cory Booker

and then it drops off in to the high 70s for other Dems, followed by 27% Trump.

Probably because I left everything pretty much at Somewhat because I couldn't be fussed to be nuanced in weighting. I'll admit I didn't expect Klobuchar to be on top, given I'm very much in the Bernie/Warren wing of the party. But it's splitting hairs pretty much.

That said, I do have some right wing stances, but on the areas most vital to me (where I did click a rating), I'm quite far left.

Ahhh, how soon we forget Congressman Delaney, the darling of the moderates after the first debate.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Wow, talk about consistency ... you are solidly left leaning for sure!

Well since all the cool kids are doing it - FWIW I did not "drill down" (ie, click for more questions), but only selected the original ones presented.

95% Cory Booker
94% Elizabeth Warren
93% Julian Castro
93% Marianne Williamson
93% Bernie Sanders
92% Pete Buttigieg
90% Amy Klobuchar
86% Andrew Yang
82% Tulsi Gabbard
81% Joe Biden
81% Michael Bloomberg
76% John Delaney
6% Donald Trump

Well, they definitely got my top 2 right and the Trump number - LOL!

This was interesting and was surprised by some of the results:

92% Bernie Sanders
92% Amy Klobuchar
91% Pete Buttigieg
91% Andrew Yang
91% Julian Castro
90% Elizabeth Warren
90% Tulsi Gabbard
90% Cory Booker
87% Marianne Williamson
85% Joe Bidden
83% Michael Bloomberg
82% John Delaney
22% trump

And not surprisingly, if I answer more of the questions, everybody plummets. Highest I get is Delaney and Bloomberg at 80 and 79, two people who have absolutely zero shot at becoming President. Nobody else is above 70%.

These quizzes always feel off to me both because there's a lot of questions that don't have any relevance to what I want in a president, and because I'm not sure how or if they determine what the candidate's priorities are (something I've never been able to figure out on my own), so, this time I didn't answer questions that I felt like were irrelevant.

I got:

Bloomberg
Kobuchar
Gabbard
Buttigieg
Yang
Williamson
Booker
Delaney
Biden
Sanders
Warren
Castro
Trump

That feels more accurate with Sanders and Warren at the bottom (they both tend to end up on top if I force myself to answer everything) Though I'm not voting for Bloomberg either. Thought Biden would be higher.

Top 4 were Buttigieg, Warren, Sanders, and Booker.

Warren and Sanders up there only because there was no option for "no more septuagenarians."

OTOH it had Biden at the bottom (77%) just above Trump (7%), so at least it got THAT right amongst the oldsters.

Pete's been the guy I've been pulling for all along, so not shocked he led the pack for me.

95% Booker
94% for Warren, Sanders, Castro and Buttigieg


Biden is the lowest democrat candidate at 78%. Trump 4%.

Bloomberg at 85% which is way way way too high.

I got Mayor Pete at the top spot (82%), followed by Andrew Yang, Kobuchar and then Booker.

Trump at the bottom with 25%

Anybody still think Tulsi is seriously trying to win the Democratic nomination?

Well she was not going to win the nomination the way things were going for her. So I guess she thinks she's the closest ideologically to the middle, the undecideds and Never-Trump Republicans, so why not try to appeal to them? I'll be curious to see her poll numbers change in the next couple weeks. I'm just glad she's not running for re-election.

Tulsi would have been a Republican if there was any chance that she could win an election in Hawaii as one. It's about as easy as being an Idaho Democrat.

Buttigieg 77%
Yang 76%
Bloomburg 75%
Biden 59% (Who I would vote for)
Trump 54%

It's crazy how some of you guys got Trump at like 2%. I mean you toe the Democratic Party line on every single issue?

It's nice that they finally got down to a manageable core of 7 of the next debate. The other 8 can't seem to take a hint.

I feel like most of the questions that generate the most trump support are on the extreme edges like building a wall, keeping brown people aggressively out of the country, and refusing to budge on any gun law changes. There were some questions I answered that lined up stronger with republican voters than democrat ones that didn't seem to move the bar at all on trump

"Should foreigners, currently residing in the United States, have the right to vote?"

That was about 50/50 among democrats and 93/7 against for Republicans, I selected no as my answer, but i guess that doesn't move the bar on trump any.

I personally tend far left of many democrats on this board based on the discussion in this thread and score poorly on Biden, for example. Call that toeing the party line if you want, I guess?

Wait, I know it's not really the point of your post but did the site really indicate that half of Democrats want non-citizens to have the right to vote?

Hell, I was embarrassed I got as high as 6% for Trump.

I will say in previous isidewith polls, folks like Romney or McCain got at least 20% or so.

And I would argue does 'toe the Democrat Party line' equal backing Biden? or backing Sanders? Because those two have vastly different views.

What I meant is that I consider myself fairly Libertarian but also kind of saw what they were getting at with some of the questions. Somehow I still matched Sanders on like 30%, just either find that people are saying what they think the site wants them to say or the site is pretty extremely slanted against Trump if people are only matching less than 5%. On a cell phone and it's too hard to research but would be interested if people were 3-5% on Bush or McCain when the board did this years ago because besides being an asshole and the whole wall.thing Trump seems to just have typical Republican views so they should be the same for them unless like I said the site switched methodology or people are intentionally answering every question just to not match Trump.

What does it mean that I got Tulsi Gabbard as my number one candidate?

Easily the best of the debates tonight. Crazy that the smaller field brought better discussion.

I don't think anyone really did poorly, but I felt Biden probably had his best night and Klobuchar and Bernie both did well. Bernie brought a little less Bernie and focused more on broader issues rather than driving the same couple of points home over and over again and he also had a few great one-liners.

Biden successfully navigated the reparations minefield and didn't get killed on healthcare. That's a huge win for him. Overall he was just consistently good which is a big change from the previous debates.

Klobuchar is a little like Booker. She's consistently strong, but doesn't seem to get any traction.

Warren seems to be getting lost in the shuffle. She seems to be trying to pivot a little on health care to differentiate herself from the field but I'm not sure it's really going to work.

Buttigieg is an outstanding counter-puncher and I thought he handled the attacks on wealthy donors really well.

Yang is Yang. He's an entertaining guy that's become more comfortable on the stage, but has no chance. One of things that hurts him is he allows himself to get lost in the debate when things get heated.

Steyer surprised me with what I thought was a solid night. I'm not sure he does anything at all that stands out from the crowd, but tonight shouldn't have hurt him at all.

You're a 4-chan troll or a Russian agent.

As I've gotten older my views have become far more liberal so I know my views have shifted further away from the republican party. There's just not much of anything left in the GOP that I feel represents me. I was in the military during the Bush administration so I very likely was a bit more to the right at that point in my life.

I'd argue that the focus on immigration, the border wall, healthcare for all weren't really talking points during the Bush administration or when McCain ran though. I also think the traits you look for in a President question pushes my views further away from Trump. My views align closer to Warren and Sanders, but I think my traits selections likley pushed Buttigieg above those two.

Biden, Klobuchar, Sanders did well. I think Buttigieg did punch back well enough, but that "wine cave" thing is already becoming a meme and is going to hurt him (and 4 years ago private fundraisers with wealthy donors killed Hillary). Yang started off well but disappeared late. Warren had good points and meh points over the night. Steyer was ok. No one did poorly.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Buttigieg 95
Bernie 94
Castro 94
Warren 93
Klobuchar 93
Williamson 92
Boooker 90
Yang 87
Biden 87
Gabbard 83
Bloomberg 81
Trump 15

Most of mine are lumped together in the 90s. Guess I'm a good Democrat.

Looks like all the 4Q Fundraising numbers have come in. Sanders had an eyepopping $34.5mil. Buttigieg had $24.7mil. Biden had $22.7mil. Warren just announced she got $21.7mil.

And surprisingly Yang got $16.5mil and Klobuchar got $11mil!

That's Biden's highest Quarter, FWIW. Buttigieg stayed about the same (I think 3Q was $25mil). Warren dropped a bit.

The national polls (according to 538) are showing Biden still in #1 with 27.5% (actually going up 0.5% since the last debate), Sanders solidly in #2 (17.7%), while Warren lags behind in a stable #3 (14.9%) after dropping A LOT from where she was in October, and Buttigieg started to drop a little from where he was in early December in #4 (7.6%).

The other thing interesting in the national polls is Bloomberg is a solid 5.3%, while Yang and Klobuchar are still around 3% and Booker is at 2%. You'd have to think those three are going to drop after the first 4 contests if they can't find any traction.

National President: Democratic primary Polls | FiveThirtyEight

This is what is going to make the Bloomberg experiment interesting: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...tates-n1110791


500 staffers over 30 states, concentrating in Super Tuesday states. is national numbers are already trending up with his media blitz. Can a primary just be straight bought?

His polling numbers are rising a bit. Will be interesting to see how far he can get - but he's going to be hurt by not being in the early states.

Also Julian Castro dropped out and endorsed Warren for President. Not sure if that will help her, but it can't hurt.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

538 just put out a very pretty Democratic Primary Statistic Analysis Forcast:

Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Nomination? | FiveThirtyEight

Tom Steyer just qualified for the January debate one day before the qualifying deadline. That makes 6 very white candidates for this stage.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

And Booker just dropped out of the race. It's sad that he didn't get more traction.