As should Tulsi Gabbard.
Harris also way behind in her own home state.
Early yet but Biden’s strength in the wake of a negative news cycle is notable.
I think there’s still a significant non zero chance that Biden announces and then wins the first several states.
I’ll note that this is not my preferred outcome.
Early state activists may be a good predictor. These are from February, but I’m pleased to see greatest strength among my own favorites. (Turn off SultanBugs to view the table.)
That's why I've been repeatedly interviewing a group of roughly 60 Democratic Party activists in
Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and Washington, D.C ...
Share of respondents who said they were considering a candidate or
had already committed to support a candidate in the 2020 Democratic
presidential primary
Candidate Dec 2018 Feb 2019
Harris 60.5% 54.3%
Booker 44.7 48.5
Brown 39.5 45.7
Warren 23.7 40.0
Klobuchar 34.2 37.1
Biden 39.5 34.3
Sanders 28.9 28.6
Gillibrand 21.1 22.9
Hickenlooper 21.1 22.9
Merkley 7.9 20.0
Delaney 15.8 17.1
Castro - 17.1
Buttigieg - 17.1
O'Rourke 34.2 14.3
McAuliffe 5.3 14.3
Bloomberg 15.8 8.6
Holder 18.4 8.6
Gabbard - 8.6
Bullock 2.6 5.6
Source: Seth Masket, "Learning from Loss: The Democrats, 2016-2020"
Just in case you were wondering, the Democratic blogosphere is not the Democratic electorate: The Democratic Electorate on Twitter Is Not the Actual Democratic Electorate - The New York Times Upshot
Terry McAuliffe isn’t running. Gotta say this is the first “Not running” announcement that made me think “Good fucking riddance.”
Although Bloomberg did make me think “Good riddance,” but without the F-bomb.
Rep. Seth Moulton is in. A fine man but he’s overreaching.
Biden officially announces:
“The core values of this nation… our standing in the world… our very democracy…everything that has made America – America --is at stake. That’s why today I’m announcing my candidacy for President of the United States. #Joe2020”
As of the present moment, I am leading towards Bernie Sanders or Amy Klobuchar (based on a combination of issues, record, and my sense of electability – I recognize that those two are very different), with Cory Booker somewhat close behind (mostly since I think he’s the most talented pure politician of the field, with a natural political ability as close to Obama or Bill Clinton as we’re likely to get with this field), and Kamala Harris close behind Booker. There are only a few of the field that I’m actively rooting against for the nomination – most of them are fine with me on the issues and their record.
If I could get whoever I wanted, I’d want Sanders or Warren. But electability is a major concern, and I don’t yet have enough data on that for most of the candidates. Nor do I trust my own gut assessment of the candidates’ electability: After all, whose gut told them that Trump was electable?
I agree with these choices … EXCEPT exclude Sanders please! This guy, who is five years older than Trump, will be branded as a Socialist; I’m afraid he’s unelectable. Recall that his strength in the 2016 primary season came from caucuses, with a demographic completely opposite from the Rust Belt know-nothings who will decide a general election.
I’m also hoping that one of the longshots — perhaps Jay Inslee — will rise up, shine, and become a contender.
Bernie won primary elections in Wisconsin and Michigan.
Every Democrat will be branded as a socialist. But it’s just my sense, based on various polling data I’ve seen and conversations with voters. I don’t think Bernie is necessarily the most electable candidate, but I don’t think he’s the least either… and electability is not the only thing I’m considering.
Yes, but without the caucuses he never would have been a contender.
Bernie is Ok. What I am concerned about is what the GOP and the Kremlin will use in their smear campaign. How will they Swiftboat him? So far, they were actually “supporting” him, so as to weaken Hillary.
As best we can tell this is flat out wrong. Sanders consistently did better than Clinton in the polls versus Trump.
This time around not even Fox News is disregarding Sanders.
“This voting phenomenon tells us that working-class voters are disenchanted with the status quo.”
That would suggest Biden is a terrible choice since he is practically Clinton v2.0. No one in the current dem lineup represents the status quo more than Biden does. Hell, he embodies it.
Only because no Kremlin & GOP smear campaign, and in fact the opposite, they supported him vs Hillary. Those much linked polls are thus useless. The Smear campaigns lowered Hillary’s popularity by a significant amount. The Comey letter was the biggest, but the social media trolls and smear campaigns were significant.
Actually no, Status Quo may be what we need. And there wont be any Comey letter for Biden, and we can already see the smear campaign :
-
Biden is a good and honorable man who gave a eulogy for a long term co-worker, concentrating on the few good things he did/ Smeared as: *Biden said some nice things about a very bad man, thus Biden concurred 100% with everything that bad man did. *
-
Biden is a old school baby-kissing and put his arms around people in pictures politico/ smeared as he is a creepy pedophile.
-
Biden is a smart campaigner and accepts funds from many sources/ Smeared as Biden is a tool of Big Banks/whatever.
I want you to think about that- the Bernie-bros and co dug up a 2003 eulogy Biden did for a fellow Sentaro (Biden is the “go to” guy for eulogies in the Senate, see his very nice one for McCain) and somehow turned that into a smear.** 16 yo eulogy.
** What can the Kremlin and GOP smear Sanders with? Dont tell me there aren’t things even worse that a 16 yo eulogy.
Right, Biden is a normal candidate. The electorate in 2016 clearly did not want a normal candidate. A firebrand like Sanders might appeal to many of the same people that Trump did.
Or maybe, after four years of Trump, people will come to their senses and want a return to normality. I don’t know. And at this point, I’m not convinced anyone else does, either.
Have there been any head-to-head polls of the Democratic front-runners vs. Trump? Yes, I know that polls aren’t entirely reliable, but they’re still the best source of information we have.
This is actually what I was coming in to say too. What really matters, imo, are the industrial states Trump took in '16-- Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin. Are more voters there looking to continue disrupting the status quo, or will more people there (and elsewhere) turn out for someone who represents a return to normalcy?
And that’s how, as a Michigander, I’m gonna decide who to support. Bernie and Warren may represent my views ideologically, and I may want to see some real drastic change on behalf of the middle class, but I’m pulling the lever for the candidate I think will bring out more voters in November 2020, whether that’s Bernie, Booker, Biden or somebody else.
Now more than ever, I’m looking at who will appeal to the most voters in those three states I mentioned. Is it more Bernie? Or more Biden? Right now I’m leaning toward a return to normalcy being the more popular option for voters in the industrial midwest, but who knows?
Looks like **septimus **and I are fairly close in our outlook.
Here’s my current ranking (by preference, not as a handicapping of their chances) of the field–excluding those candidates I don’t see as worth discussing. They are ranked all the way from top to bottom, including within tiers, but being a tier above another candidate means a lot more to me than outranking someone within a tier.
HELL YES:
Booker
Inslee
WORKS FOR ME:
Castro
Harris
Hickenlooper
Swalwell
Moulton
Ryan
MEH:
O’Rourke
Gillibrand
DO. NOT. WANT:
Klobuchar
Biden
Buttigieg
Warren
DEAR GOD, NO:
Yang
Sanders
GTFO:
Gabbard