Warren, Harris, Biden in statistical tie in Iowa
Warren 20%
Harris 18%
Biden 17%
Sanders 12%
Buttigieg 10%
Klobuchar 4%
Booker 2%
Everyone else 0-1%
Probably better phrased, “Biden’s support among black voters has fallen sharply. Consequently, his support among Democrats has dropped from 30 percent down to 22 percent.”
Among whites, he’s been part of the pack for a while now. His big lead among African-Americans had been what’s kept him out front overall.
I want to yell, “Game’s locked!” so the remaining candidates would be locked out.
Indeed!
While it is way too early to declare Biden is dead, it is certainly time to declare him to be in (big) trouble. You don’t drop that far after just one debate, and essentially just because of a minute or so of that debate, and not be in trouble. I suspect he will continue to drop, just as he always has, and see no reason to think otherwise.
I agree. He had broad early support due to 1) Obama, 2) name recognition, and 3) perceived strength in the general against Trump.
While voters seem to like him, they don’t seem to love him, and will find someone else when the tide turns even slightly.
Only because the rest of the field either flamed out or became too extreme for one side of the GOP or the other. McCain became the Hold-Your-Nose-And-Think-Of-Christmas candidate.
Uh, are you saying that’s how you think it SHOULD work? Because that’s most certainly not how it DOES work.
I’m imagining a debate between Trump and Biden, and I just can’t see myself wanting to tune in to watch. If it’s not a trainwreck of gaffes for both sides, it’ll probably be boring because both will be trying to appeal to people who already like them.
Am I the only who feels this way? Whoever the nominee is, they will need to be someone who makes people want to sit up and pay attention.
The other side of it, as Nate Silver (I think it was) said, is that candidates who get their own side excited get the other side riled up. So sometimes boring and generic can be very strong in this era of negative partisanship.
Joe Biden raised 21.5 million in 2nd quarter fundraising. Yes, that’s right, he was beaten by a small town mayor. Joe Biden, former VP and a senator since 1973.
Dems need to focus their efforts on riling up their base, though. That was the big lesson in 2016.
Well that certainly suggests pre-debate problems.
But still, these are kind of big numbers. I’ve read a little about how some of the first quarter numbers weren’t historically high. In my mind though, with such a bigger field they are pulling some serious cash. In 2008, Obama got $25M first quarter, $32M second (Hillary got $27M) in a much smaller field.
… those 2008 numbers look even more impressive given they were raised in a pre-Citizens United world as well, CarnalK.
I vaguely recall being taught that this was the plan until somebody noticed that everybody wanted to send their kids to the better schools, at which point somebody stepped in and told the parents which schools their kids would attend.
Read a few things about Harris that haven’t been vetted in the mainstream yet. If she fets the nomination be sure the name Willie Brown will be used as a hit job.
I thought the Citizens United decision just freed up third party spending, not direct contributions to a campaign.
That’s on a touch over two months of being a candidate in the quarter. He still managed to beat Sanders by 3.5 million for the quarter. Sanders was in the race for the entire quarter. If it’s bad news for Biden, it’s abyssmal for Sanders. I suspect were’ going to see a lot of numbers from candidates that wished they were even close to Sanders before this round of reporting is over.
Wait, are we comparing 2019 with 2008? (Hint: one’s divisible by 4, the other isn’t.)
I was talking about and quoted their primary fundraising. You may note I gave both Hillary and Obama 2nd quarter numbers? So, technically it was 2007 fundraising, also indivisible by 4.
How? I had no idea who he is, and I’ve lived in California since the turn of the century. Who actually cares?