I'm afraid that the last while O was in office the GOP screamed about the deficit but now it's not an issue again. During the campaign it'll be the GOP's calling card that they care about the deficit while the Dems are spenders. My experience is that it'll resonate.

My takes from round one:

Warren is really, really good at her groove. I think she's a sitting duck in a general election, but she understands better than anyone else there by far how to make the most of your 45 seconds. That is a very important skill.

I've give the "gains" last night to Booker, Castro, and maybe even De Blasio (though I doubt that will matter). They all fit the format reasonably well, landed some points, showed some passion.

O'Rourke looked tired and pale, the latter a serious concern. I think he's done, have ever since the Vanity Fair cover, so maybe my pre-event bias is seeping in. He's a ton better in his element standing on things and flailing his arms around than behind a podium.

Klobuchar, I think, is done too. Two different times I wanted to play back her answer, re-write it for her, and tell her how to say it. And while I work in politics, I am not a messaging/comms expert -- I just have some intuition on how you go about saying shit. Either she has rotten handlers, or she isn't able/willing to take their direction. I think she's the biggest loser from last night - moving from the middle to totally out.

The body language of the leaders/followers made the rest fringe-y. Inslee is too intense, and I think his angle of climate first is still a novelty act. Ryan was not spectacularly bad, if pushed I'd add him to the good list. Gabbard actually sounded coherent on paper, I just can't listen without the baggage of knowing that she carries around a fair bit of political lunacy.

Ezra Klein wandered around on format, but eventually got to: do two nights, four 1-hr events, each with 5 candidates. That would have been better, I think.

Knowing this board leans left, I'm curious about an impression I had watching the debate.

Now, disclaimer: I am a political/social/fiscal conservative who is appalled by the Dem Party's current lurch to the left, but I'm also very unhappy with the GOP, and I did not and will not vote for Trump. So don't stereotype me, bro. ;) But you'll know where I'm coming from.

That said, I have no delusions that Delaney has any chance of winning. But I actually liked the guy, and one of his talking points really resonated with me - the idea that Dems need to find a way to propose feasible, even bipartisan if possible, solutions, rather than grandiose promises. I feel the same way about GOP candidates. We aren't electing an emperor with supreme power, after all, but a chief executive who has to rely on Congress to do ANYTHING legally.

This is a point that seems lost on the average American and renders much of these debates a fruitless exercise, because the candidates aren't proposing things they can actually get DONE.

I want to hear a candidate tell me what they will DO as president, not what they think ought to happen - which is irrelevant in too many cases, particularly with the more ideologue candidates.

So, am I just showing an affinity for Delaney because I'm conservative and he's a moderate Dem? Or does he have a legitimate point?

I know Delaney (I work in MD politics) and that bi-partisan approach is genuine (even if initially district-driven). It's difficult to fathom how that thinking could possibly win the day in either party primary, but to be honest he's not far off policy-wise from Joe Biden in that specific respect (the left-right axis).

Related issue - the most interesting question of the night in my mind was "what's your Mitch McConnell plan?" That is, to anyone paying attention, a pretty central part of what awaits a successful nominee.

I thought Obama promised too much, and then when he couldn't deliver, the response was just that the Republicans were obstructionist, and I guess, they didn't realize Obama wasn't running for King.

I'd like to hear more about the practicalities in passing some of this proposed legislation. It seems like there's a fight over far left and more moderate left, like you'd expect, but I'm not sure how much that really matters when more moderately progressive legislation is so much more likely. I guess we're all just going to continue to assume that the U.S. will have a one party system soon, but, what would a Warren presidency look like with a controlled or partly controlled GOP Congress? Is she willing to settle for less or will she obstruct anything that isn't everything she wants? What are the candidates willing to do, and not willing to do, outside of Congress, as far as executive orders and law and policy enforcement? Obama and the Dem congress of that time were criticized for being spineless - what would the alternative look like and what positive results would come from it? What type of progressive legislation is more likely with a hard-ass approach v. a reaching-across-the-aisle approach and why (and vice versa)? Would a moderate candidate veto or otherwise try to obstruct more progressive legislation if it did find the light of day? If Biden is too old and not progressive enough, how exactly do those things hinder the best legislative outcomes we can hope for? In other words, what are the practical differences between the candidates, if any?

Policy stances without context are of limited relevance. Though I guess they have the research that that's what gets people to the polls and what gets donations flowing.

Well all that depends on Congress, right? If the Democrats win the Senate, a lot of the ideas become more feasible (and if they win 67 seats in the Senate - very unlikely to happen, then all the ideas become more feasible). And every candidate has to believe their coattails will sweep in other Dems and win them the Senate (why run if you don't believe that).

If a future GOP Senate minority leader is less likely to wield the filibuster, things like public options or a higher minimum wage would easily happen.

If you recall, Booker actually did speak about this somewhat last night - how he is for Medicare for All, but on day one, he'll work for things like a public option to the ACA because it is more possible to be done quickly and then work for M4A.

Going back to my above statement, the Supreme Court decides that the federal courts can't interfere in partisan gerrymandering. I expect some number of GOP states will redistrict before the 2020 election.

Every blue state needs to start gerrymandering their districts using the same tactics the GOP has used. The only way to get the GOP to put a stop to something is use it against them.

Yeah, I'm a mutually assured destruction guy when it comes to GOP violation of norms. Gerrymander, eliminate the filibuster, pack the court, do it all until they back down.

Of course the Dem response will instead be to support non-partisan redistricting in blue states, keep the filibuster, and negotiate their next court pick for someone appealing to Susan Collins.

How about Puerto Rican and DC statehood? Anybody pushing that? Hell, if Wyoming is a state, let's make a state out of the Pacific Islands like Guam and American Samoa. Though some electoral votes and House seats might be poached from blue states, six more Senators wouldn't hurt.

McConnell is publically against it because it means 4 more senate seats for Dems. So until senate flips it's dead in the water.

What a horrible decision and explanation. Hope this gives the Dems more ammunition to show up on Election Day.



At least the Court agreed that the citizenship question on the 2020 Census is a no-go.

I agree with this in general. I suspect there is something about most of us on this forum who found ourselves gravitating to spreadsheet games that is a bit different, and may of us may be approaching much of the world from a slightly different angle as a result. I watched the debate with much frustration. 95% of what was said was worthless to me, but I felt the need to stay tuned in to pick out actual policy positions out of all the bluster and grandstanding and talk of impossibilities.


Honestly, revrew, can you just tell me the candidate that scares you the most, and I'll vote for that one. And I can tell you the candidate that bores me the most, and you can safely vote for that one ;) (hint, right now its either Beto or Biden). Seems like that'd save us a lot of annoyance and likely land us in about the right places anyway.

I'm really hoping for a good democratic candidate. I voted Hillary and am pretty open - I just want someone who is reasonable and not anti-business like most of the fringe left. I watched the debate without knowing a ton about each person, I liked Booker, Delany and Ryan. I was disappointing in O'Rourke (after all the publicity) and wasn't sure why Klobuchar was even there. She stumbled over her words and looked overmatched.

As of right now, my hope would be Biden - and I would really struggle if Warren or Bernie made it. But, I can be swayed on the others as I learn more about each.

Anti-mega corporation/Wall Street != anti-business.

I'm not sure anything other than winning the Senate or unseating him will accomplish anything. And I don't know that either of those things happens.

No, doing the Bernie Sanders "significantly increase taxes on people with small businesses because they are rich" is anti-business. It seems like both Bernie and Warren have this policy. No thanks

Are Puerto Ricans even pushing this?

Last night I kept a bit of a score card. I gave a candidate a positive tick when they made a good point and a negative tick for a bad one.

Tim Ryan made the best impression on me. For example I liked the fact he brought attention to the mental health of children.

Julian Castro was by far the worse. I mean we don't need a Marshall plan for Central America when we're broke and all the other times we interfered in Central America it turned out badly.

Corey Booker got the most ticks but were pretty split by good and bad ones.

That's just televised debating though, especially in this format where you're fighting for airtime. You're not going to be allowed to get in a nuanced argument, and you don't want to get caught in a position where you get cut off before you get to your main point, or have some minor mistake that can be used in later attack ads ("X said that 50% of Puerto Ricans were without power for 2 months, in actuality it was only 37%. More Dem lies!" etc), so you just pick whichever of your pre-rehearsed soundbites best fits the line of questioning and go with it. Maybe we'll get this field winnowed to 4-5 by September and they can start going longer, but until then you're welcome to read their websites or try to find individual town hall type sessions they've done where they can speak for longer.

Agree with others that Booker was a winner, Klobuchar the big loser, and Beto nearly at the point I'm ready to cancel his (2020) candidacy. Disagree on Ryan - maybe he's a slight winner because I couldn't identify him before, but while Hilary may have lost the electoral college in 2016 because she didn't pander to the Rust Belt-ish states enough you can't win a national primary doing that. Was surprised Julian Castro seemed to gain some support because I still think he needs to actually win some sort of bigger office than Mayor of San Antonio & he doesn't seem to have done much since he left HuD with Obama's exit. And surprised Tulsi Gabbard got more traction because she's crazy, but she sounded moderate last night, can present herself as a war vet, and most importantly she's kind of cute, so that'll always leave a good first impression on most people.

If Yang could give me a UBI and free healthcare I would seriously consider retiring.

Biden certainly did not make it through as unscathed as Warren did on night 1.

My Top 4 amongst those who I think have a chance.

1. Warren
2. Harris
3. Sanders
4. Biden

This was a much better debate than last night. It's a shame we didn't get to see Warren with this group.

I thought Harris killed it. Sanders was strong and it's amazing how much his ideas have shaped the debates, but he could stand to vary his message a little. Biden is a strong debater, but as the alpha he's going to get attacked quite a bit and Harris hit him hard. Buttigieg showed he's well versed on policy and did well tonight too.

Bennet may have done enough to gain a little traction, but at best he's going to have a ceiling in the 2nd tier of candidates. Hickenlooper just doesn't belong.

Harris was the star tonight, no doubt. Buttigieg also had a good night. Sanders was meh. Biden had a very bad night (but not sure it'll have a big effect on his base of support)

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I'll take the free/socialize healthcare but Yang's UBI proposal is $1K a month (either or if you are already on welfare or other social program) and that would be difficult for me to live on.

Harris was definitely the big winner, with Biden taking the biggest hit. I have top performers in the two nights ranked:


1) Harris
2) Warren
3) Booker
4) Buttigieg

Marianne Williamson was the star. Hands down.

I think Harris has a lot of Perot/Bush and Sanders/Hillary potential in that she is a very effective speaker, resonates well with the base and can bloody up the "favorites" in the primary. The problem is she has zero chance to win a general election given her views (basically mirror Sanders) and the red meat in her past available to Trump's attack dogs.

My guess is she will be among the "winners" in nearly every debate she's a part of because she has a ton of conviction in her views and is extremely persuasive (esp to the base). I'm just not sure she's going to be helpful in the broader goal of getting rid of Trump.

Wait, what? Is everyone in the Top 5 who isn't Biden going to be called mirror Sanders now?

1. She supports Sanders' Medicare for All bill (provide every American with health insurance through Medicare while eliminating private insurers and virtually eliminating co-pays and deductibles)

2. Harris has signed on to Sen. Bernie Sanders' College For All Act, which would waive tuition for all students attending public colleges and universities whose families make $125,000 a year or less.

3. Both signed on to the Green New Deal plan and have similar views on climate control.

4. They have the same views on decriminalizing drug offenses, gun control, abortion and most social issues.

5. They both have the same stance on immigration, afghan war and trade.

5. They voted the same on 93% of votes (including all 39 major votes)

I'd be interested in hearing any legit differences Harris has from Sanders because I haven't found one yet. Even on taxes, both want to repeal Trump's plan and come up with a lower/middle income tax (under 60K) and phase out any benefits for people making over 100K (which I guess qualifies as "rich" now). Outside of maybe Warren, I can't think of another candidate closer to Sanders' stances on the issues than Harris.

Half the field is for M4A, and until last night, Harris' rhetoric was far more Gillibrand (who is also a sponsor of Sanders' bill) and Buttigieg- M4A is the goal, but in the interim, lets do a public option and build on top of that.

Both have jumped on board Green New Deal as has Gillibrand, Warren, Booker, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Yang, and Williamson, but neither was really the architect. One can easily say that both Harris and Sanders are mirror Inslee (or AOC, really).

Harris's history on policing has been very different than Sanders (and not very promising for a Democratic candidate for WH). I believe she's changed her tune a bit, but she was against a body cam bill for police and she was fine with mass incarceration for drugs... until she started running. (an area where Harris falls well short of the rest of the field). This is where Harris gets the most concern.

Most of the field has the same positions on abortion/social issues/and gun control. In fact, Sanders is probably the most pro-gun candidate in the field (maybe Klobuchar) - this was a big point brought up in 2016 as well.

Just about all the candidates have the same stance on immigration (as you heard last night), and the War in Afghanistan. Even Biden. Biden is more free trade than the others (which I like about Biden).

Harris is far closer, IMO, to Gillibrand and Booker than she is to Sanders. I think perhaps in your list of positions, you don't realize that most of the people running adhere to a lot of those positions (though some regard them aspirational as opposed to this is what we need to pass now - like Sanders does).

I'm not following this as closely as some, but from what I've seen I basically agree with ISiddiqui's take. On this, I don't think there's a single Dem in the field who has anything close to zero chance against Trump. You could literally pick one at random and whoever it is starts out as a favorite in the general. Not a sure thing by any stretch, but definitely a favorite. Harris does not, at least not yet, have the big negatives in terms of public perception that Clinton had. Her polling shows that she generally isn't known well enough (not a surprise) but those who are familiar with her are pretty much split 50-50. If Hillary had gotten close to that instead of being badly underwater she would have won '16 comfortably. And that's if the economy doesn't tank which it is due to do at some point. If that happens it literally won't matter who is nominated.

I follow most of this logic, right up until the conclusion. Then, I think back to 2016. Why on earth was that race even competitive at all?

Because there's a natural inclination to keep horse races as horse races, and not runaways. You fall behind, you shift tactics, you try to change the subject, etc.

Anyhow... I suspect that whoever the D nominee is, the red team will work extra hard to take whatever raw materials is presented (old votes, internet memes, russian propaganda, outright lies) and develop it to occupy as much space and time in the public square as the collective values, achievements, or goals that the D nominee asserts, plus the critiques and attacks on Trump or the GOP.

And this is why, despite my deep (and deepening) admiration for her articulation and effectiveness, I think Warren is the most flawed of the group in this exact respect. They will use her "lie" over and over, it will definitely stick with a ton of persuadable voters, and it will work every bit as well against her as Benghazi and servergate combined. I'm totally convinced of this, she's got a really wide and visible Achilles' Heel, more so than Biden's list (grabby, plagiarizer, old) or anyone else's known weaknesses. Hers is right there, and if your main objective is to prevail, I think it's basically disqualifying.

100% agree about Warren. It’s super disqualifying. People will crawl out from under rocks to vote against the fake Indian woman.

(Otherwise she’d be my #1 by a significant margin)

They'd be crawling out of the rocks anyways. I just don't think exaggerating your background is going to be as big of a deal as other things they find on others - I mean Warren has less unfavorables than Biden and Sanders at the moment. And if you don't think the same people who will be all "I'm voting against Pocahontas" won't come out against a black woman or gay Catholic, then I don't know what to tell you.

I think there are limits on being that liberal on policing when you are the DA. Once she stepped away from that role, her rhetoric changed to match most of the left.

I think most of the favorites are pretty close to Sanders in Booker, Warren, and Harris. Only Biden is more moderate. I think there is that left group and then a more socially liberal but moderate on the entitlements/economy in Biden, Ryan, Delany, Hickenlooper and Klobuchar. I just don't see any of the moderates outside of Biden having a chance. And I think the more liberal crew will be making an all out assault on Biden in these primary debates. The two I don't really have a feel for are Buttigieg and Gillibrand - which intrigues me on them. But, they don't really have a chance. O'Rourke doesn't really seem to stand for anything and has come off as an empty suit trying to impress all groups. In the end, it's going to be Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris and maybe Booker? So, it does really seem like it will be Biden and four Sanders clones as the final option - and that is disappointing.

This is my frustration with politics - the primary system seems setup to depress moderates on either side. That's why I was hopeful for Hillary - but her negatives just became too much to overcome. That's also why I think we got Trump as the base favorites usually lack the ability to relate to the rank and file with their stance on the issues. I can't see Trump losing to Warren, Sanders or Harris. Booker is a wild card - but I think it would take a nominee like Biden, Hickenlooper or Ryan to really have a chance and I don't see a way they survive the primary voters.

It's very strange to call people like Harris and Booker as "Sanders clones" to me. For one, they are diametrically opposed to Sanders' views that race issues are simply a subset of class issues, and that if you fix the class issues, you'll fix the race issues. That's a MASSIVE difference in basic ideology there.

Of course I find it even more amusing considering Sanders fans can't STAND Harris or Booker. Booker is called Republican-lite by some of them (like I've heard quasi-facist being applied to Harris). Speaking of DA limits - there are many choices one can make as DA - being against body camera bills and being for mass incarceration are choices that other DAs haven't made in blue states.

And if you are depending on charismaless guys like Hickenlooper and Ryan to defeat Trump, you've already conceded IMO. They'll never beat him. They are like Mike Dukakis or John Kerry pt. 2. Biden has a shot, but he's gotta be better - his response to the Harris attack on him was lame and if that's how he's going to be, he's getting eaten alive (same goes with Ryan and his response to the Gabbard exchange - & she's as loony as Trump).

Star child, at least!

1. Evangelicals for most of the race were split, with about half saying no way are we voting for Trump. Then fear of Hillary winning had them flipping on that about six weeks out. As has been said, SHAME on them for doing that - and I'm an evangelical. Let's just say that many people who I respected before, I no longer do. There were prominent voices urging them to do the right thing, but too many who followed the 'lesser of two evils' logic.

2. Most importantly, Hillary was the most unliked candidate in modern history this side of Trump. That was true at the beginning at the campaign so it wasn't primarily based on any strategic adjustments, has been for almost her entire political career, and had little to do with Trump's attacks. The hard right would still never have voted for her but if she hadn't been viewed the way she was, she would have done much better with the rest of the country.

3. All the rust belt, anti-trade, preserving coal BS econ populism that's been discussed to death.

So my perspective is still that all you need is someone significantly better than Hillary. Aka, anyone comparable to the nominees by either party in the 40 or so years previous. Trump's approval has not significantly risen and has been consistently the lowest of any incumbent over his first couple of year - it's now above where Carter was at this point but we know what happened to him. And this is in a good economy.

So is Kamala Harris for new busing laws or something?

This really isn't controversial nor is anything that should be considered a far left position anymore. 52% of republican voters support it along with 70% of all voters. Any Dem that doesn't support M4A in some manner is dead in water.



You've basically highlighted the current democrat agenda and pointed out that two of the top 5 candidates share views on those points. That's really not a surprise. If a candidate isn't supporting those issues they're not getting through many debates.



I honestly think you're a little out of touch with how far to the left the nation has moved overall. I'd put Harris, Booker, and Sanders (maybe Buttigieg as well) above Biden in a general by the time November 2020 rolls around while Ryan and especially Hickenlooper aren't beating anyone in a general election.

Biden is coasting right now and I said a while back despite how well he's polling I'd take the field. Biden's positions are dated and he has a lot of skeletons in his closet that he's going to have a difficult time explaining away.



I don't think the Native American thing itself sticks. It may be used as an excuse, but I feel that if Trump wins its largely because he's convinced enough independents that the economy is going to crash without him, that illegals are going to poor over the border and rape their daughters, that dems are going to raise their taxes in order to make life easy for those lazy non-working welfare kings and queens, and that the gay is going to spread like the flu.

It does create an easier excuse not to vote for her and I'm sure some will jump at the opportunity. How many would come down to how effective the GOP message is.

If Warren has less unfavorables than Biden and Sanders (I believe it with Bernie, not sure why people's positions would be more hardened on Joe than her) it's because they just don't know her. I do agree that there are very few anti-Buttigeig/Harris(/Williamson?) people who would ever vote for her, but I really think elections are about maximizing the undecided's in that 10%. And not the undecided's from an R/D perspective, but the undecided's on whether they'll actually vote or not.

Imo Biden is already dead on his feet and will be put out to pasture soon, Bernie will be Bernie and keep his 12% until he halfheartedly endorses the Dem nominee, and it's really a two person race between Booker & Harris to become the younger more charismatic one who can be the Obama to Liz Warren's Hillary in the primaries. If that process takes too long maybe Warren wins the nomination and we get a fight between two unlikeable candidates, but I'm hoping Booker gets the nom, Trump sees the writing on the wall late, and Booker beats Pence 330-210 or so.

I'd put my odds on Booker or Harris right now. However, I'm not ruling out Buttigeig, Warren, or Sanders yet and I think all 5 could win a general election with Warren having the lowest chances out of that group.

At this point I'd pay to see Harris on a debate stage with Trump.

Good lord as I prediced Dems are gonna Dem. This group of hopefuls mentioned here are going to get eviscerated in the general by Pres Dump. I am resigned to Trump getting reelected and am now more concerned we are setting ourselves up to Ivanka and Trump jr next running in 2024-2032:-(. I believe Trump has a lot oi fascination with this concept.

Was on vacation and missed the debates. How did Yang do? Still not very appealing in his presentation?

I would support a candidate for free healthcare. I know it is something that would never fly because of the taxes needed to do it, but I would pay more taxes to make it happen.

That or free up the system so their is more competition. I would love progressive to take on all state for your health care dollars. Seems like competition would be a bonus.

Of course, then you have to rein in big Pharma and hospitals. And the whole industry really.

I mostly had the debate on in the background. But yeah the few times Yang did get to speak he was rather unappealing. I mean if you like his ideas then you'll like what he said. He just needs to work on being more of a salesman. He needs to be more buzz-worthy if he wants any attention.

Democratic Candidate Booed For Over A Minute After Trashing Medicare For All - YouTube

Edit: Changed video to show actual footage.

Democratic debate 2019: Republicans urge giving to Marianne Williamson

They must be feeling the love.

Just to reinforce the point. Yang got a whole 3 mins of air time which was the least amount for any candidate in the two debates.

I laughed out loud at this for a good three minutes. If Trump could see the writing on the wall, he couldn't read it.


I love how often people write off the dem candidates because of their flaws. Name one flaw that any Democrat running has that is bigger than any one "disqualifying" flaw that Trump has. I will wait....


The fact is that Trump proved that there is no such thing as a disqualifying flaw *if* you have enough of a fired up base. Warren claimed Native American heritage. So? Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women. Harris was a tough on crime prosecutor that some find was racially harsh. So? Trump calls White supremacist "fine people." Biden has a host of issues from the Obama administration all the way back to his positions when he was a senator. Trump has put children in modern concentration camps.



I understand that we are in the process of picking one candidate to fight Trump. But I will say if we pick the weakest of this group, it will still be a better alternative to what we have. I don't know if who is picked is as important as how they will run. Any one of them will be better, but will their campaign be better than the Trump machine? Can we overcome the expertise of the GOP messaging operation to explain to the people how they are being mislead against their own interest?

That second thing is the tricky part. Republicans can shoulder minor "scandal" much better than Democrats can. Partly because they're more likely to vote no matter what. But even some Dem voters seem to bail more quickly. Hillary dropped in the polls when that last email memo came out. That wouldn't have been a blip for a Republican. Harris could win the nomination, be leading in the General election polls, but then lose at the end because someone leaks some memo from 10 years ago where she advocated for a harsh sentence for a black drug dealer using too-casual language.

I'd alter that slightly, if the people in your party don't care. That's going to be the fatal flaw for any Dem Trump-like approach. They'll be an endless stream of concerned Dems on TV throughout the election.

According to the MSM they are not concentration camps. Haven't you seen all the attacks on AOC?

Obviously Trump is a unique political figure.
He has portrayed himself as the ultimate outsider, so all his flaws just prove to his base hes is, indeed, not a polished Washington type.
Everyone else was willing to overlook it all to try something new.
Will it work for a second time?
IDK

But no Democrat is going to get that pass from their base or general electorate.

That is part of what has to change. If you like the message, you are going to have to stop nit-picking the messenger. If only a flawless candidate can win, then we have already lost.




Minor scandal? How about super-major scandal? They seem to be able to shrug off major crimes without blinking.



That's why I go back to that it is going to take a candidate to really catch fire and make people ignore the flaws. Of course, Democrats are horrible at that, but then you could argue Obama did just that. There were flaws there, but he was so charismatic that people ignore them. Can we find another? Is Harris that person? I wonder. She is definitely the first candidate I would consider financially supporting. I don't have much money to give, so I am holding out till I feel confident in someone.



In the end, I am still going to say it is all going to be in messaging. Can someone really spark the imagination to a point that their weaknesses and flaws are ignored? If you say no, we might as well get ready for four more years of Trump.

This at least partly due to the fact that GOP voters have traditionally feared Dem policy more than Dems have feared GOP policy. It will be interesting to see how much, if any, Trump has changed that dynamic.

The First Democratic Debate In Five Charts | FiveThirtyEight


According to Fivethirtyeight, the three big winners of the debates where Harris, Castro, and Booker. I am in favor of any of those three taking over the top spot. Catro was someone I favored early, but I wondered if he could get pull himself out of the pack. Booker was one of my favorites 4 years ago, but has been underwhelming since.

The 2nd debate had a big impact on the bettors. Harris is now the favorite on PredictIt, with Biden sliding to 3rd here and there behind Warren. Poor Beto is back tied with the longshot masses.

Harris with Castro as VP would be a strong ticket I think

Im watching Warren. Still turned off about the whole naive american thing, but she didnt talk about Trump according to the 538 chart. Good for her.

Maybe someone who hates corps and has ideas and isnt concerned about Trump may work.

I need to look at her more closely. Still not happy about the native american thing.

Ideas wise, Warren may be the strongest candidate right now.

Personally, the Native American thing doesn't bother me at all. I see why it would for others, but it has no impact on her ability to be an effective President. She cracks my top 5 at the moment, but definitely sits behind Harris and Booker. Probably Sanders and maybe Buttigieg as well. I want to see more from Buttigieg. His knowledge on the issues and ability to own his mistakes impressed me.

Biden reminds me a lot of Jeb!.

But the voters, especially olds and blacks, don't seem to be pulling away yet.

While he states:

He still shows Biden's performance as "somewhat good" in his chart.
???

Harris destroyed him.

I think it's worth pointing out that this happened to Trump in '16. No nominee in modern America has gotten anything approaching the criticism, unwillingness to endorse, etc. that he got from his own party. And he still won. It's interesting to me to see whether or not that was just a blip, or if that kind of thing just doesn't matter as much anymore.

Somewhat good was based on the morning consult poll after the debate. He still underperformed relative to his pre-debate favorability.

Yes. And Trump will win again. And I look forward to it! As do millions of others ...

Very much this, the GOP and its media are extremely good at creating fear, and have created the environment where facts no longer matter in a conversation. This is extremely good for convincing people that they have to show up at the polls or Hillary will start a nuclear war, or Bernie will turn america into a communist state within a month of getting into office.

Democrats suck at this, or at finding any alternative to motivate voter turnout.

Dems had what they need in Obama.

The party powers think Biden is the best choice. Dem nomination is chosen, unless an Obama-type candidate steps up.

Trump beats Biden. And the dems in charge cant figure that out.

Sure, until he won the nomination. At that point the electeds all started getting in line, and now they can hardly contain their glee for Trump.

dola

Just to memorialize how awful this G-20 trip was,

Trump joked with Putin about killing journalists and interfering with elections

Trump smiled with bin Salman and didn't mention the butchering of Kashoggi

Trump unilaterally promised to lift national security restrictions on Huawei products

Trump clearly didn't understand concepts as simple as western liberalism and school bussing

Trump begged Kim Jong Un to meet him and validated his leadership by walking into North Korea

Trump had his daughter with him at all most every meeting

Trump sent his National Security Advisor to Mongolia and went to N. Korea with Tucker Carlson instead

Trump took shots at both Germany and Japan.

With the exception of some tweets, nobody in either party is going to do anything about it.

Except Biden won't win the nomination.

First off really Trump beats Biden?
Secondly, yes I still think Biden wins the nomination in the end. Otherwise, yes Trump in a easy win I fear with D's staying ho e or voting third party.

I think Trump/Biden would be a tossup, but I think once we get through the primaries he'd be one of the weaker options and easier matchups for Trump.

Biden dropped 10 points after the first debate and it's not getting easier for him from here. The fact that his platform really doesn't match up well with what excites Dem voters is going to sink him. Biden and Hickenlooper are both running on platforms from the 90s. The only thing keeping Biden in the race at this point is his attachment to Obama.

I think people forget that you can win by exciting your base and getting them to turn out to the polls. There is always this notion that the only way is to go for the moderates and independents - as if we already have like 99% voting rates.

I'm laughing at all the comments about people not being able to beat Trump, or the Dems will lose unless they nominate this candidate. Almost anybody can beat Trump. He won his first election with narrow victories in three states. Let's not act like he's Ronald Reagan. There are certainly people who have a better chance than others, but any of the frontrunners can beat Trump.

Ok, now I get it.

I generally agree with this. His image whitewashing of late is mysterious to me - voters have had chances to see him before, and pretty universally said "no thanks." I guess he feels to many disaffected Dems like the last best alternative to HRC last go-round, and he's benefiting from some gauzy Obama halo effect, too. But Biden is exactly the guy we saw this week - dropping mentions about hos five years ago it was "fine" to make gay jokes. THAT is who Joe Biden is, as a politician, and as a campaigner. He's actually a weak candidate, in most ways past the "want to have a beer with him" category.

Exactly. Running in 2016 and campaigning on 4 more years of Obama was his chance to win the Presidency, and even then I think HRC was dead set on a 2016 run & it would've been a war between the Obama and Clinton machine in the primary, (and Sanders never would've gotten the space to turn into a quasi contender for the Dem nomination so he would've been like the Green Party nominee.)

I can't figure out yet if Biden is exactly where Jeb Bush was 4 years ago or exactly where Rudy Giuliani was 4 years ago, but either way my gut says it's more likely he drops out without winning a state than that he wins the nomination - and that's while acknowledging he's very well positioned to win in Iowa & a lock to win Delaware whenever they hold their primary.

Biden doesnt get the young voters out.

They will think: "Oh no, another old dude. Im not voting."

Young voters win a dem a white house.

Biden/Trump gets Trump the win.

I think the "excitement" factor has nothing to do with who the Dems put up. It will be about "voting out Trump."

The most passion that will be scene in this race will be hatred for Trump. And that will drive voters, young and old, to the ballot box. "I voted out that asshole Trump" will probably become a thing in late 2020, like some weird badge of honor.

The candidates that generally appeal the most to the younger voters are the utterly insane ones, that will in turn drive more people out to vote against them, even if it is Trump.

I agree, but wasnt Obama an outlier? Who did he get out? Surely the young voters came out in record numbers.
The GOP votes. The dems dont.

Unique moment. First black man to be a serious presidential contender, who ran on his charisma, of which he had plenty. That was inevitably going to draw out massive voter numbers.

Can't trade on the "vote for a minority" wagon again and expect great turnout just from that, and I don't think "vote for the first female president" has as much prestige to it since Hillary lost. Don't get me wrong, it'll be a big deal when it eventually happens, but I just don't think you'll get historic turnout just playing the 'vote for a woman' angle now.

I don't think you can assume what will happen in 2020 based off what has happened in past elections. We have never had a president like Trump and never been in a political climate like todays. I think in the past younger people have looked at politics as an "old persons" game. That favored the GOP. I think Obama, and Bill Clinton to a lesser degree, moved that needle a bit but we will see a huge shift in 2020 of young voters, if for no other reason then to get Trump out of office. I think young people, women especially, are tired of old, white men making decisions for them and will vote whomever the Dems choose just to shift the status quo.

If that does happen I think the Dems are in for a nice long run, and the GOP will look back on their loyalty to Trump as the death blow. If Trump wins, I think we are pretty much screwed as a country and democracy. It would show young people don't care, and the GOP tactics work.

So that's why Trump got 3 million more votes than Clinton


Oh wait...

Biden has been a bad campaigner twice before. Maybe the reality is that he's just not good enough to win the big game. Everybody decided to forget about his past campaigns after 2016, but so far he's acting more like Jeb! than Obama.

I think it's fantasy to think young voters are coming out in significant numbers. I don't see that happening no matter what. Look at all the #NotMyPresident protests after Trump was elected - most of the people marching in them at college campuses across the country didn't vote. Every cycle we are told this is the time young people are going to take control of the ballot box - every cycle it doesn't happen.

Trump will almost certainly lose, but that won't be why.

Do you recall having as many demonstrations as we had after Trump was elected, then the presidency to arguably be worse than everyone thought?

Youth turnout went up about ten points from 2014 to 2018, with basically all of the increased turnout going to Dems. If there's a similar jump from 2016 to 2020, Trump is toast.

Given what I know about them and the potential attacks they face in a general, I can't see Warren, Harris or Sanders winning against Trump. I think Biden would be a tossup as he could get some of the "white guys in the midwest/south who don't like Trump" vote - but he wouldn't be as strong a candidate. Booker is the one that intrigues me - I think he would have a legit shot of rallying the younger voters. Outside of that, I just can't see any of these people winning. Then again, I didn't think Trump would win the republican nomination (and the general) - so take all this with a pound of sale :D

The last thing I will say - republicans vote on "fear of the opponent", democrats vote on "how inspiring their guy/girl is". So a bad nominee doesn't hurt republicans nearly as much as democrats - especially if a someone that can be branded a clear republican villain like Warren, Sanders or Harris is nominated.

Dems will get more voters out than R's. They did in 2016 and millennials are skewing heavily D while the Boomer part of the electorate is starting to shrink. If turnout stays high as it did in the midterms then the Dem candidate likely wins unless they really screw things up again. If they screw things up then it's going to mirror 2016 and come down to how independents fall.


Trump's biggest flaw going into the 2020 election is he governs to what gets his base excited and never really goes outside that comfort zone. He's going to run up the score in strong red states, but unless something changes quickly he's going to struggle in some states he won last time.

Not in the right spots though. And that is where the candidate has to stir up support.

I think this is a good point. The democrats can't just use a message that resonates with the coasts. As Ryan said, you can't forget about the midwest and the south. Winning New York and California by a combined 6 million votes again won't matter if the democrats lose Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida like Hillary did. They need a candidate that can connect in those areas - and I can't see Harris, Warren or Sanders doing that.

Sanders certainly could - I knew quite a few working class Republicans who were hoping he'd be nominated so they could vote for him. Warren can hit the same points - they speak to the workers who feel screwed over by their corporate overlords and that resonates powerfully.

Harris is a bit of an odd duck just in general. She's not establishment and she's not progressive. She's this bizarre halfway state that I can't really describe.

So you are saying with a straight face, Biden is the most inspiring Democratic candidate?

BTW

Kamala Harris pummeled Biden.
Last poll I saw
Biden -10
Harris +8

General consensus she won night 1

Still in the running, did not make a big impact.

Most googled candidate after first night, people were curious

Quiet debate, but nailed his closing remarks.
Seems to be an "anyone but Bernie" movement brewing.

I think I did fairly good.

Buttigieg is in a similar strange space. He's semi-progressive in his policies, but speaks far more pragmatically. Yet his main talking point is changing the electoral system - like in the getting more people to vote, ending gerrymandering sort of way. I'm not sure that turns out a lot. He does have amazing personal charisma though.

90% were looking for pictures of her in a camouflage bikini.

I'll just remind everyone that in the summer of 2016, Clinton (13 points) and Sanders (12 points) had big leads over Trump in the polls.