If we were to use Trump supporter logic you could say it's a 4D chess move to make a play for Trump's base.

Biden is not an idiot. He is a man who appears to be too old to credibly handle the job of POTUS, but it's a little early to get overly worried about that IMO. We're still in the name-recognition stage. Also amused at Bennet claiming the DNC is stifling debate. It's not like 2% is a huge polling number.

Joe, I love ya, but I have zero interest in a septuagenarian President, now, or ever again.

Go away, please.

Biden's best shot was 2016 but between his son's death and it being " Her Turn", welp.

There can't be too many guys that ran for their party's presidential nominations 32 years apart. This is kind of like if Ted Kennedy ran in 2008.

Biden has always been a politicians who has made flubs though (a big flub killed his 1988 campaign, IIRC). This isn't really an age thing, IMO.

My current thinking:

Dems I would like to be President because I think they'd do a good job (regardless of electability): Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar

Dems I think have the best chance of beating Trump: Biden, Harris

Dems I really don't want: Gabbard, Williamson, Sanders

Dems I'd be fine with: Everyone else.

I woke up the other day to about a dozen posts on facebook with friends and family in New Hampshire getting photos with Pete Buttigieg. He went to church on Sunday at the outdoor chapel of the summer camp I went to and worked at - and where my sister and a bunch of friends still hang out at some weekends in the summer, (it's a big camp with a RV/cabin rental component across the street from the kid's summer camp.)

He took communion and everything - I didn't realize he was Episcopalian, which converts at a 1:1 ratio with the camp's ELCA Lutheran persuasion. Then he filed his Meet the Press segment that morning from the camp's dining hall. All my friends and family who met him were just smitten. It was crazy to see photos of him just hanging around this camp I've been a part of for 35 years.

Campaigning must be exhausting. But it was probably nice to sit there outside for 45 minutes at a church service where he didn't have to say anything or be "on."

Edit: His campaign seems to be fading quite a bit, but I wonder if his base is this progressive, young, Christian, educated, not-overly political types that fawned all over him on Sunday. Probably not a great base for a national election.

That's more or less his base and it's a major reason his campaign has done a solid job pulling in money without his support really growing.

I do think he's be attractive as a VP pick. IMO the strongest ticket Dems could probably run against Trump would be Warren/Booker. After that there's some combinations with Buttigieg that would play well on the national stage too. At the very least it would be interesting to see how the evangelicals would react to Trump/Haley against, let's say, a Warren/Buttigieg or Biden/Buggigieg ticket.

I think there are a lot of people that like Pete, but are worried he isn't ready to jump all the way to the White House. r

I think that Buttigieg can already consider this process a win, even if he fades and drops out after Iowa. He went from someone with super low recognition (I follow this stuff pretty closely, and I did not hear of him before this campaign) to someone that is now known and generally liked.

He seems to hit that sweet spot of not threatening enough to any front runner to be attacked, but known enough that he gets some media play.

I'd put him at the top of the likely Dem VP list right now. And, even if that does not work, I could see a cabinet position open up if the Dems win the White House.

I agree. I think he is the big winner and break out star so far, even if he still a huge long shot to win the nomination. A few might have up their profile a bit, but none to Pete's level.

This is a fun game. Let's play:


Dems I would like to be President because I think they'd do a good job (regardless of electability): Harris (Sharp and Capable), Booker (Inspiring), and Yang (Wildcard, Truly push the American Experiment)


Dems I think have the best chance of beating Trump: That is tough. I don't really think Biden is the best candidate to beat him at all. I worry about Warren as well. I would in the end say Harris or Booker. I really think they all have a good chance, but can definitely fail. I think it might depend more on circumstance and how Trump runs.



Dems I really don't want: Biden, Warren or Sanders. That is my very unpopular hot take. Still want any of them over Trump.


Dems I'd be fine with: Basically anyone.

Dems I would like to be President because I think they'd do a good job (regardless of electability): Warren, Booker

Dems I think have the best chance of beating Trump: Biden, Booker, Harris

Dems I really don't want: Gabbard, Williamson

Dems I'd be fine with: Most others.

Gillebrand out.

Good Riddance

Man I feel like I’m not going to get my $1 T-shirt. :(

It's weird - on paper, you think she'd have at least been in the conversation of the lower-tier candidates. But she was strangely invisible for most of the election cycle.

That's how I feel about Klobuchar. I liked her as a candidate, and she seemed pretty well positioned on paper: woman, Midwestern, liberal but not too liberal.

But stories came out about how she was a mean boss, and, like, that was it.

Weird.

It seems like a lot of Dems blame her for Al Franken leaving. That's always the first thing I hear when she comes up

I wonder if her physical similarity to Hillary hurt her. Voters make decisions mostly absent of policy considerations.

She did a fantastic interview on NPR about that. She still stands by it, even id it hurt her. She says an aide that worked with him talked to her personally about it, and she still believes her. Her best point was it hasn't really hurt anyone but Franken. Personally, I like Franken, but I really don't have a problem with him resigning. I think a Senator should be above reproach. I also don't like the hypocrisy of calling republicans out for the same infractions but over-looking it in popular liberals. The inte4rview was mostly about the article that calls into question some of the accusations of the one named accuser, but she points out there where 7 others. I can't tell you I knowv all the facts, but I believe Gillibrand.

I think Klonuchar also admitted that after those stories she was trying to play nice, and that doesn't really help you stand out in a crowded field. Even Booker's superliminal optimism isn't getting him much traction.

Daniel Dale on Twitter: "This was the tweet:… "

oh.

After like, what, 1 or 2 polls that showed Biden in a dead heat with Sanders and Warren... it appears those were completely outliers. People freaked out about those way too much. Seems it's back to Biden with 30%+, Sanders around 20%, Warren 15%+, and everyone else. Harris has gone all the way back down to <10%. Buttigieg, Booker, O'Rourke, and Yang are all in the 3-5% area.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/u...nge-plans.html

Well at least it's cheaper than Bernie's 16 trillion dollar plan.

If it has to be one of the top 3, I'd go with Biden. VP candidate is more interesting, I like Yang just because he is so different.

I think he's mostly maxed out his support though. The analytical data is trending Warren's way and I think she'll be the big gainer as others drop. Bernie seems to have his loyal base, but has struggled to expand beyond it.

There's a reason 538 still favors the field over Biden.

But on the latest podcast, seems to suggest that it will likely be one of those three, with Warren the most likely. I still hope it is one of the field over those three, but it looks unlikely right now.

I really hope against hope that all we're left with in 2020 are 3 more baby boomers. That is the most depressing thought I can think of besides 4 more years of Idiocracy.

Biden probably has, but there were plenty of folks who thought Biden's support would dry up as his gaffes got reported. Not the case. The other nominees will be have to fight to bring Biden down. I think Warren is probably best suited to it, because Bernie also seems to have a small but consistent loyal base yet turns off a lot of others.

I think Biden is where he is going to be. I doubt he ever losses much support, but I doubt he gains any either. He is the pick of the "safe bet" part of the party, and I don't see that growing. Warren seems to be the candidate that can get voters on the full range. She pulls from the part of far left that don't support Bernie for a host of reasons. She also pulls from the center as well because she has worked with the establishment for a long while (plus she is actually a democrat unlike Bernie). She can overtake Biden if say Bernie pulls out (not likely) or self destructs/has health issues (still not likely but probably more likely than him quitting).



I am just trying to see how anybody else really jumps up and holds on. It will take some kind of surprise move. Harris had her bump but wilted pretty quick under attacks on her record as Attorney General. Booker just can't get any traction being the happy warrior. Pete has had the biggest name recognition jump, but I just don't see how he moves any higher than he is now.



The dems really need a young, dynamic charismatic nominee. I just don't see one coming.

This Rick Wilson USA Today piece is everything: 2020 election is a referendum on Trump and Democrats are blowing it

I think it's Biden or Warren and I'd make Warren a slight favorite at this point.

I don't agree for the need for a young, charismatic nominee though. It would be a great thing to have (and I'd say Buttigieg already qualifies), but the Trump administration has everyone except Trump supporters looking more at the issues than at any point I can remember. Strong ideas and a path forward on those ideas is what's playing well right now and that's Warren's strength.

I am sorry, I wasn't clear. What I would prefer is a young charismatic leader. I don't think they have to have one to win.

Funny you post this right as I mention the exact opposite opinion.

Trump didn't win because of a slogan and a hat. Obama didn't win because of a slogan and a poster. It's a gross oversimplification of events. Healthcare, Gun Control, LGBTQ rights, minimum wage, college costs are all policy discussion that are in the mainstream right now. The Trump administration has pushed policy to the forefront of political discussion.

That I agree with. Buttigieg would be an ideal VP candidate for Biden, but I don't see him winning. His best path would probably be to run for governor and then run again at some point in the future.

The only knock I personally could put on Warren is her age. We do need younger leaders. In the general, though, I think the fact that she's a woman will hurt her more.

Of course, there is no way in Hell that Buttigieg can win Governor in Indiana.

It is sad, but I agree. I also still think she feels like Hillary 2.0" to a lot of people, even though it isn't true. I disagree with you about what really engages the electorate, though. I think that in the primary policy ends up being very important, but the general brings in less engaged voters. Having something that excites them is pretty key.

So Biden is reportedly has plans to attack Warren during Thursday's debate. This should be interesting as I don't think Biden is very strong on the attack.

What is eventually going to sink the Biden campaign, IMO, is he's trying to be everything to everyone and thus has no identity (other than VP for Obama). He plays himself up as a moderate to moderates and as progressive enough to the progressives. The progressives aren't buying it and right now he's riding Obama's coattails with the moderates. He really needs a strong debate Thursday or he's just going to watch his lead evaporate as others drop out and voters gravitate toward a single candidate.

Which other moderate has a chance though? Biden is leading because he's the main person that moderates can gravitate to. Even if he has a weak debate, it's not like moderates are going to flock en masse to Beto or Buttigieg.

He's a moderate and does a solid job attracting moderate support. The point is he's selling himself as the moderate solution that can beat Trump because he's a moderate yet he's also trying to sell his progressive record to progressives.

Most following the primary could give you an idea of what Sanders and Warren stances are on a lot of things. We know Yang wants to give everyone money. Biden is running on more Obama, but not really more Obama because we need to be more progressive.

That still doesn't answer the question of what other moderates are going to step up. There are a LOT of Democratic moderates out there who don't want Sanders or Warren to win the nomination. Biden seems to be the big moderate candidate because other potential moderates - Harris, Beto, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Delaney, etc - haven't broken through for various reasons.

Who are the anti-Sanders & Warren crowd going to jump to if Biden falls?

Cory Booker! The guy who had a great 2016 DNC speech Corey Booker's entire Democratic convention speech - YouTube and is charismatic and accepted by Wall Street etc.

I'm buying (literally) Booker as having a legit chance to rise sometime soonish. I think there is a lane for a male non-socialist - that space is currently being occupied mainly by Biden, but as he fades (and he has to) many in the party will be wary of women (on silly grounds that it didn't work last time) and of too-sweeping policies (on reasonable grounds like the Rick Wilson article linked above - just play it safe)... and I think they could end up looking at Booker who is articulate, young-ish, and not saying outlandish stuff. (The specific argument for him over Buttigieg is subtle, but I'm sitting on a ton of 3c shares of Booker on PredictIt based on this logic)

If Biden wins Iowa, it's pretty much over, right?

I don't think so. I think the best parallel to this election is not the GOP in 2016, but rather the GOP in 2012. That was Mitt Romney as the nominal frontrunner, but who had detractors within the party. We saw over time the voters and party machinery just bounced around from one alternative to another as a rival to Romney... Rick Perry, Phil Thompson, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, even Rick Santorum. Just about everyone in the race got a little run somewhere, because there was an undercurrent that Romney was just "wrong." I feel like the same could happen here, to some degree. Not sure John Delaney gets a Herman Cain style run to the top at any point, but I could see it happening - especially if it looks like Biden and one of Sanders/Warren as the apparent finalists, a lot of "just win" Dems could find deep faults with both options there, and end up taking another look at someone else from the menu who might have finished up the track - Harris, Booker, Buttigieg, Yang, who knows.

The old line is Iowa punches three tickets. I think someone who's an also-ran in Iowa could remain viable as a potentially significant disaffected crowd within the party is unsatisfied with the frontrunners. Harris could run 5th or 6th in Iowa but still be alive for a California primary, frex.

Biden's main appeal, especially with African-American voters, is his electability. If he wins Iowa, doesn't he solidify that argument to a great degree? He almost certainly won't win NH, but I doubt that hurts him, and he may even get a boost with a second-place finish. If he wins in Iowa, he'll probably win SC by a big margin. Super Tuesday has a lot of southern states, and he'l again do well in those.

Now if Biden loses Iowa, the race will be wide open. His appeal right now is almost entirely on electability and if that collapses he might be out of the race after a poor Super Tuesday showing.

For me the big questions are how long are both Sanders and Warrren in the race, and when one of thems drops out, where does their support go?

Booker has also been my current hopeful. He's further back than I would like, but I think he would decimate trump in the general and debates.

I like Booker. I've given money to his campaign. I don't see how he gains traction as "the moderate" if he hasn't been able to get above 5% to date (and that was back in February - he's lower now).

He's also like 3rd in African-American support (behind Biden and Harris), which is a bit shocking but also hurts him a ton.

As long as they are #2 and #3, they'll stay in. And that may mean they split the primary votes all the way to the end. The shocking thing is that (according to the latest Morning Consult poll) for 29% of Sanders supporters, Biden is their second choice (the top second choice person)!! 27% of Sanders supporters have Warren as their second choice. Warren has actually risen as a lot more of Bernie supporters had Biden as their second choice earlier on.

24% of Warren supporters have Bernie as their second choice, but even there 21% of Warren supporters have Biden as their second choice (which is #2)!!

27% of Harris and 25% of Buttigieg supporters have Warren as their second choice. But there too, Biden is #2 with 23% of Harris supporters and 21% of Buttigieg supporters saying he's their second choice.

So part of that is name recognition and Biden being Obama's Vice President. But that's a lot of Biden support, even among voters you'd never suspect it.

My favorite Biden info is that he leads in both African-American support and among those white Dems with the highest level of racial resentment.

Haha, how do they measure that?

Pollster: On a scale of 1-10, how much to you resent minorities?
Polled Dem: 10! 10 I tell ya! Also, go Biden.

Edit: Or do they try to profile Dems and look for characteristics of racial resentment, like, I don't know, where they live or what music they listen to?

The gamblers and most of the 538 analysts see Warren as the clear favorite. It's interesting to see the disparity between those numbers and the polls. I guess they're skeptical of Biden being able to grow his base from here, and also Warren is the only candidate who has consistently increased her support through the entire process.

Or as the guys on a pod I listened to this week said; "she's offering to give a whole lot of shit away for free!"

It's a pretty common data point available in a number of polls. There's a whole series of polling questions that get to a number. There are questions as to the accuracy, but for this observation, I don't think accuracy matters a lot.

Not only that, but her ground game here in Nevada (just to give an example I'm familiar with) is insanely strong. Like, to a level where most of the other candidates are lagging far behind. Feels like only Bernie is really close to her here in that department.

I think the slow constant rise in numbers is what the gamblers and stat outfits are looking at. The idea seems to be that Biden and Sanders may have hit their peak support, but Warren's outer bound hasn't been reached yet.

538 has Biden up by 17 points and he is slightly behind Warren with the Vegas line so not sure what you are seeing.

Bovada and Predicit translate to around a 33-35% chance for Warren and a 27%-28% chance for Biden. Not a blowout or anything, but clearly ahead for a while, whereas Biden beats her by double digits in some of the polls. Which is why I mostly look at the gambling numbers at this point for a quick look at where everyone stands (or at least, the perception of where everyone stands based on people who back their projections with money), as the polls are all over the place.

I think if I asked a bunch of people on the street who don't closely follow politics who the most likely Dem nominee is, Biden would win by a lot. (I don't know if there's polling on that kind of thing). So I wonder if Warren has even better chances than the gamblers think, since it looks like she does better as a pick with the people paying the most attention.

Yeah, but the people who pay the most attention haven't been very good lately... idk if it's voter fatigue, people not wanting to pay attention this early, politics turning into a competition and people being loathe to switch from "their guy/girl" or something else but these poll numbers for pretty much everybody seem stickier than anyone thinks they should be this early.

I really wish this debate was in two nights with 5 candidates each. 10 is waaaay too many.

Nah man, the split prevented Biden, Warren, and Sanders being on the same stage. I'm excited to finally see that.

I personally want to see candidates like Yang get more than 4 minutes of speaking time.

I think maybe doing the tier thing (two nights, one with the top in the polls, then a second night with bottom) just wasn't that bad of an idea. The crowded stages aren't really giving anybody but the top time to speak anyway.

But the lower tier would then complain they weren't being treated fairly (and it's too early to play Top 5 favorites, etc):


Imagine if Biden, Warren, Bernie, Harris, and Buttigieg were on one stage. Who would watch Booker, Beto, Yang, Castro, and Klobuchar?

I would. More, if they have time to actually make some points, the media will talk about it and replay it. They might actually get some attention. On this stage, the top 3-5 are going to suck all the oxygen.

The media would completely ignore the second tier debate.

Hell, I'm a political junkie and I wouldn't watch the kids table debate.

Carly Fiorina broke out during an under card debate in 2016. The media covered it just fine.

I'm good with having them all on stage tonight but agree they don't seem to have enough time. Maybe making the debate longer?

I am ready for it to be whittled down to 5-6.

Tonight's debate is 3 hours so they have more time than the first two. I like having all of them on the same stage. But I'm not sure how much these debates matter. Kamala had a breakout performance and is back in single digits. Biden struggles but stays at the top. Maybe having Warren and Biden on the same stage will allow her to draw contrast and pull ahead.

Also, Gabbard and Steyer will likely qualify for next month's debate so then it will be back to 2 nights unfortunately.

Just gave Yang $10. And entered at a chance to win $1000 a month for a year.

Biden seems a lot sharper tonight.

Biden is going right down the middle. Is the moderate route the winning route?

Maybe he can give voters that deal to get him some votes!?;-)

I dont believe you can go with a plan that offers private or public choice in health care.

The weakens the public option considerably.

Can you tell who the top 3 are in this debate? Why even invite anyone else. The democratic party has told us who they are backing.

Biden takes a broadside shot. Biden getting whooped.

Yang is the every guy candidate.

"I am Asian, so I know a lot of doctors" HAHA

WHERE IS EVERYBODY?

fixed

This "take your guns" rhetoric is going to backfire.

This has far and away been Beto's best night of the debates.

He's said a lot of emotional stuff but I have no idea why I should vote for him.

One of the biggest lies our government tells us is that we can make tribal countries democracies. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The board has let me down tonight

If Biden is the Dem choice our country is screwed.

Biden has done well tonight . Certainly better than in the past debates. He will be a vast improvement over Trump.

What were those idiots chanting?

Biden's had a solid night. I think Booker has really stood out. Harris seems disinterested.

I think Booker had a moment or two early but think Pete did pretty good overall. I think Warren, Sanders as well as Biden were who we thought they all were.
My wife who has been a public schoool teacher 6 years in a high risk school by choice gets irritated by Warren repeatedly using the I was a school teacher card. She was a school teacher for a year and gave it up to go be a high priced corp lawyer.

Yang has dominated. Warren was very good. Sanders did very well. I thought Biden continued his stumbling buffoon act. And hos Moderate stance is not what should sell.

We have a very right president or one with crazy ideas. its not a time for moderation. Biden would be a softball for Trump. He would eat Biden for lunch.

I honestly think Harris and Castro are the only 2 that you could say had a bad night.

Warren and Biden performed similarly well. Sanders problem is when you get outside of his primary interest issues he loses steam and tends to try to steer back to those issues.

Beto had his best night, but he would be best served to run for senate again.

Buttigieg was solid throughout and had a fantastic response to the adversity question. He closed strong. He could be an outstanding presidential candidate in the future, but I'm not sure if the timing is ever going to align with his popularity.

Yang isn't winning this, but he belongs in an administration.

Klobuchar has probably surprised me the most. She's had a solid night and stood out to an extent.

EDIT: Booker had a hell of night as well. I honestly have no idea how he isn't polling better.

ROFL.

What in the world was Castro thinking on that over the top attack on Biden? He was wrong as well as mean. Dumb. Harris was meh. Everyone else was ok to good. Biden had his best night. Bernie may have had his worst, but was still decent. I think Beto, Booker, and Buttigieg stood out, but they have to make up a lot of places.

As for who would Trump beat in a debate, have people forgotten he got eviscerated in the Presidential debates in 2016? He'll just bluster and try to bully and his fans will eat him up but no one else will and in the end the debate performances won't matter.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Because even you forgot him in your write-up! :p

Everyone who listens to him likes him, and it never gains any traction. It's baffling & kind of infuriating to me, but what can I do?

Joe Biden performed well besides this insane bit where he strongly implied that he believes black people are incapable of raising our children without government help in the midst of the rest of this Palinesque word salad.



I say again: something is wrong with this man.

Here's the video:

What on earth??? pic.twitter.com/rrvOdujoFh

— Ben Lewis (@benelou) September 13, 2019