Castro, Booker, Bennett, et al are all running on skeleton staff, so it’s easier for them to cling on. None are making the next debate.
When I saw on LinkedIn that a friend had been promoted to be one of the no-names’ campaign manager: “oh, I guess everyone else quit.” I kept that to myself.
seems that some people are not happy that the next debate is all white people unless Patrick or Booker qualify.
Yeah, I am seeing this in the reporting as well: How the field has gone from the “most diverse of all time” to a bunch of white people (again). But unless someone feels Booker really has a shot at gaining the nomination, much less being elected President, the field was going to narrow to a bunch of white people at some point anyway.
I do think there are a number of campaigns circling the bowl, but I can also see why some of them will hang on just a bit longer in case there is an implosion with one of the major candidates and there may be an opening.
Yang and Gabbard need one more qualifying poll each to qualify. They’re not white.
Gabbard might not be “white” in the sense of “fully European-descended” - but I think she basically reads as “white” to most people. Has she ever referred to herself as being “a person of color”? I don’t see any reference to it, googling it, and I doubt she could do so without being called on it.
Gabbard has a white mother and her father is half European and half Samoan. I guess she is 3/4 white. I also don’t recall anyone calling her a person of color.
I don’t think Gabbard and a couple other of the ‘also-rans’ are going to drop out so long as they stand a chance to pick up votes from others who drop out first. If Klobuchar drops out, for example, I think Gabbard could pick up enough votes from her to keep her in the debates. Keep picking off votes as others fall, and suddenly you are in the top group and then all bets are off.
Also, I think Gabbard has the best chance of beating Trump. I can tell you that she is almost certainly the most-liked of the candidates by people on the right. She’s relatively moderate, she’s a veteran, and she’s accomplished in several areas.
She would also be the hardest person for Trump to attack. If he tries to belittle her (and he will), her military service can be thrown in his face, hard. If he tries to condescend to her, she can make him look horrible. She is also the person most likely to induce stupid errors in Trump.
Being the most-liked by the right is hardly evidence of being the most electable. But I do think Gabbard could indeed beat Trump (with the right VP.) She has poise to burn. She is poised to burn (i.e. she is capable of dressing-down opponents very effectively and not looking too bad in the process.) Her looks are definitely an asset. (Yeah yeah, sexist, male gaze etc, it’s still true.) But she doesn’t have a shot in hell of getting the nomination.
If a genie magically made her the opponent of Trump in the general election, I think she could beat him, yeah. But that’s like saying a Ferrari could win the Kentucky Derby.
That and the fact that she only had a 5% approval rating among black voters. Compare that to Biden, who is polling at 40+% in the same demographic.
Nitpick: I think you mean support, not approval rating.
Probably, although I’m not sure I’m seeing the difference.
An example: according to last week’s YouGov poll, Julian Castro is viewed favorably by 51% of Democrats, and unfavorably by 18%. That’s 51% approval, and +33% net approval.
But his support (the % of Dems who say they’d vote for him for the nomination) is down around 1%.
Ah, I see what you’re saying. Thanks.
This ^
If you backed Harris early on, one major disappointment is that she never was that popular with African American voters, and it’s not like Booker beat her to the punch, as he hasn’t gotten the charge from voters of color he expected either. Biden is winning with Black voters.
538 had a nice half-hour “emergency” (post-Harris) podcast today. Among other things, they mentioned how all those white men kn the debate stage might not be a good “look” for the party (though it might reflect voters’ real concerns with perceived electability), and so they might, say, let Cory Booker participate even if he didn’t make the cut by the preset rules.
I am hoping the whole identity politics thing goes bye-bye soon and they focus on substantive issues.
Everyone’s obsessed with rebuilding the Obama coalition, but what people forget is that Obama was careful not to fall into an identity politics trap. He didn’t want to be the person of color candidate; at the same time, he also embraced being black and progressive. Obama was successful because while everyone knew he was black, he didn’t play it up and he didn’t make whites feel particularly threatened.
Yes, they talk about that in the podcast (more at length in the previous one).
That would be bad for other reasons. Putting your thumb on the scale like that is bad juju. I think Cory will probably get there under his own steam. As will Gabbard and Yang.
We can’t have affirmative action elections.