They still take time away from the legitimate candidates in the debates, and still quite possibly will cause another debate split over two nights - in addition to the ten who were on stage ten days ago, Steyer has qualified for the October debate, and now Gabbard is just one ‘good’* poll away.
I’ve also been of the belief that one of the problems of this primary season is that too many candidates reduces the number of candidates that people are willing to think about. With eight or ten candidates, most people can almost unconsciously do a basic sort into a few leaders, a few candidates that might be worth a look, and a few candidates that aren’t. With twenty, that process is overwhelmed and shuts down.
There have been reports that some Iowans are pissed at all these minor candidates for trying to claim a slice of their attention, and aren’t shy about letting the candidates know, and I think that part of it is that they can’t think their way through twenty candidates even enough to narrow it down to a manageable number. And so you get a situation where candidates like Booker and Klobuchar who might get a decent look from voters in a ten-candidate field, basically get tossed on the mental garbage heap with all the Tim Ryans and Steve Bullocks and Tom Steyers in a twenty-candidate field.
So yeah, I think the presence of all these vanity candidates is a problem, and I wish they’d hurry up and fuck off.
2% nationally or in one of the first four states, by one of a list of approved pollsters and sponsors.
I think there are a metric ton of good reasons why Biden should not be the nominee. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM.
And far more than I want the nominee to be someone besides Biden, I really, really don’t want Democrats to feel they can benefit from bullshit fabricated not-even-pseudo-scandals that Trump or Fox News or whoever on the right thinks they can use against one Democrat, or some small group of Democrats.
When this made-up shit comes from the other side, Dems need to stand united against this. None of this “the enemy of my enemy” stuff - Trump is an enemy, Fox News is an enemy, the GOP is an enemy. Your preferred candidates’ rivals for the nomination are just that, rivals. They are not enemies.
To let our true enemies divide us, and for one Dem to take advantage of bogus right-wing attacks against another Dem, would be absolutely the wrong thing to do, and would be destructive to our common cause. We cannot let this happen.
ETA: asahi, my apologies if this seemed aimed at you. After reflection, I realize you were probably just saying, “this is a thing that could happen,” not “this is something I want to happen.” There are people out there on the Dem side who are clearly in the latter camp, and this broadside is aimed at them.
Sad thing is that it is nevertheless almost assured that minimally some supporters of a rival or two will do that. And in the process aid and abet the amoral abuse of power that is the Trump presidency.
But getting back to numbers: there have been four polls* of NH over the past month, and before the earliest of those, there’d been a gap of a few weeks. So I did my usual** averaging on them, and came up with:
So it’s pretty close among the top 3 in NH. But this is a primary that Sanders won with 60% of the vote in 2016, so I think we can see how much of that was anti-Hillary protest vote, and how much (or little) of it was about really being pro-Sanders.
*A-rated RKM, B-rated YouGov and Emerson, and C-rated HarrisX.
** Other than having them age out after a month rather than 2 weeks, that is.
Interesting numbers. But one thing you didn’t mention is how strongly they show Bernie’s ceiling, which has descended considerably since the earlier poll. His unfavorables are the worst and the “willing to consider” are the lowest.
Of course one can expect a lot of nonsense at a site like Betfair, but …
I don’t want to be over-eager to defend Betfair bettors, but Buttigieg and Yang strike me as much kookier possibilities than Clinton. Also kookier IMO are the socialist Sanders and perhaps Kamala Harris, whom I find lacking in Presidential demeanor. Even my favorite — Elizabeth Warren — has significant flaws. If I could wave a wand and pick the next President, I might go with Hillary Clinton.
It’s easy to imagine scenarios where the nomination is almost decided for Biden or Warren, with others dropped out and … disaster strikes! Where emergency forces the DNC to come up with an old work-horse as the last-minute candidate. The GOP, in a similar situation, might turn to Mitt Romney, but — serious question — whom do the Democrats have “in the bull-pen”? Most of the candidates left on the stage seem almost like jokes to me.
A 4% chance may be too high an estimate, but scenarios where the Democrats need to turn to the “bull-pen” next summer do not seem far-fetched to me.
From a betting standpoint? Don’t be ridiculous. They’re running, she’s not.
You just don’t like anyone. Whatever.
“Henry Kissinger is a friend of mine.” - Hillary Clinton
In 2016, she was the best choice anyway. Now we’ve got better ones.
How does that work? If the leading candidate was killed, presumably his/her delegates would decide who they supported instead. If Biden, maybe they’d look to Booker or Klobuchar. If Warren, my WAG would be either Harris or Inslee.
That’s not a bad bench, IMHO, but then you don’t like anyone, so maybe you disagree.
Still waiting on YouGov’s weekly update before putting up my weekly numbers, but Quinnipiac just came out with a new national poll: Warren 27, Biden 25, Sanders 16, Buttigieg 7, Harris 3.
Besides being the first A-rated poll showing Warren nominally ahead, it also confirms another trend: there have been a number of polls that just came out that have Harris down in the low single digits: Emerson’s national poll, plus two NH polls and one NV poll, all had her at 3-4%. She’s clearly losing altitude here, is noticeably worse off in the polls than before the June debate. I’ve hesitated to write her off, but at this point it’s extremely hard to see how she gets back into the race. She gave herself a big opportunity with that first debate, but totally failed to capitalize.
Now you’re exaggerating! I’ve endorsed both Inslee and Booker, but each is out, or almost out, of contention now. I also like some that were laughed at, e.g. de Blasio. (And BTW, if/when the time comes to pick a surrogate I do NOT think the nod will go to someone shown to be a “loser” earlier in the season.*)
I also DO like both Biden and Warren but in each case their candidacies come with special risks. AND, despite that I like and admire Biden and Warren, AND however far-fetched a Clinton nomination might be, I personally find Clinton more qualified than Biden or Warren on several grounds.
ETA: * - To be clear: A Veep or surrogate slot might go to one of the last 4 or 5 D candidates standing, or to someone who previously lost a general election. It’s those already eliminated or down near 1% who I mean by “shown losers.”
But I think (a) you’re addressing a far-fetched situation, and (b) the delegates representing the voters who supported a candidate - their opinions are the ones that would count, and rightfully so IMHO.
I think Warren’s supporters in particular would be less than happy being represented by a figure more tied to the past than to their vision of the future.
I see two lanes at this point. The more centrist lane is led by Biden with Harris and Buttigieg as the leading alternates. The left lane is led by Warren with Sanders as the alternate. I think the other candidate are pretty much done for.
Now that I’ve got a moment, here’s the details: all the polls are now post-debate #3 polls, specifically: A-rated NBC/WSJ, Survey USA, Fox News, and Quinnipiac, and B-rated Emerson and Ipsos, in addition to the at-least-weekly group of B-rated Morning Consult and YouGov, and C-rated HarrisX.
Biden and Sanders are still pretty much where they’ve been for a while, but Warren’s numbers are still rising. In addition to Selzer in Iowa, she’s gotten a couple of polls in NH that have her nominally ahead, and three of the last five polls out of California show her ahead of Biden, and no ‘nominally’ about it.
I’m starting to believe she could win the nomination. Not ‘will,’ mind you, it’s way too early for that. But ‘could.’
I find it kind of interesting how stable the numbers are compared to mid-August. The only real difference is a bit of a rise by Warren, and a slight drop by Biden and Harris.
