• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Warren, Biden and Buttigieg dangerously close to going broke

PoS

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
33,919
Reaction score
26,629
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Warren, Biden and Buttigieg dangerously close to going broke - POLITICO

While Sanders started February with nearly $17 million in the bank, according to campaign finance disclosures filed Thursday night, his next closest rival (nonbillionaire class) was Biden, at $7.1 million. Warren was closest to the red, with just $2.3 million left in her account, while Buttigieg ($6.6 million) and Klobuchar ($2.9 million) were in between.



The cash crunch comes at a critical time in the race, with nearly one-third of the delegates available in the primary up for grabs on Super Tuesday on March 3 — and only a handful of candidates able to marshal resources to advertise to voters in those 14 states. It’s why super PACs, demonized at the beginning of the 2020 primary, are suddenly jumping in to assist most Democratic candidates, and it’s why the campaigns are now making ever more urgent pleas for financial help.
Click to expand...

So it looks like Bloomberg or Bernie could be the finalist for the Dems based on sheer financial attrition?
 
PoS said:
Warren, Biden and Buttigieg dangerously close to going broke - POLITICO



So it looks like Bloomberg or Bernie could be the finalist for the Dems based on sheer financial attrition?
Click to expand...

Biden has been in a free fall. Buttigieg and Warren mostly in single digits with no help for neither in Nevada and South Carolina. Warren leads in one state come Super Tuesday, her home state. She's mostly in single digits in all the rest as is Buttigieg. Klobuchar isn't any better. Yeah, if the trend holds it will be between Sanders and Bloomberg after Super Tuesday. The rest unless someone makes a huge mistake or a major event or happening occurs, in my opinion have no chance of winning. They can hang on or withdraw, I don't think it makes much difference.
 
The candidate who does really well come Super Tuesday will get lots of money.
 
HumblePi said:
Elizabeth Warren's campaign pulled in $5 million since the debate Wed. Her iron-fisted approach to Bloomberg paid off for her.
Click to expand...

Some folks may be propping Warren up just to keep Sanders from owning the far left lane. If Warren drops out then Sanders is likely to gain most of her (would be) DNC primary race votes.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Some folks may be propping Warren up just to keep Sanders from owning the far left lane. If Warren drops out then Sanders is likely to gain most of her (would be) DNC primary race votes.
Click to expand...
There is something to this, but Wednesday was also her best debate by far. Warren clearly outperformed Klobuchar, who needed a good night.

Regardless, the prize looks very grabbable right now. Sanders has a list of favorable polls in ST states. In two weeks it could be effectively over, especially since corporate donors will not back Warren.
 
Jay59 said:
There is something to this, but Wednesday was also her best debate by far. Warren clearly outperformed Klobuchar, who needed a good night.

Regardless, the prize looks very grabbable right now. Sanders has a list of favorable polls in ST states. In two weeks it could be effectively over, especially since corporate donors will not back Warren.
Click to expand...

All Warren did (to gain much applause) was bash Bloomberg (while she took it easy on frontrunner Sanders) - why should that make Warren's policy positions (which are very close to those of Sanders) any more appealing? Warren's best bet would be to join team Sanders in exchange for being his VP pick.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
All Warren did (to gain much applause) was bash Bloomberg (while she took it easy on frontrunner Sanders) - why should that make Warren's policy positions (which are very close to those of Sanders) any more appealing? Warren's best bet would be to join team Sanders in exchange for being his VP pick.
Click to expand...

In my opinion Warren didn't do herself any good as to winning the nomination by bashing Bloomberg. Sanders is clearly number one, the front runner, Bloomberg number two. Knocking down number two a bit while allowing number one to enhance his position is no way to gain the nomination.

It's like in baseball, your team enters the week 10 games behind the leader, 5 games out of second. After the week is over, the debate in this case. Now you're only 2 games behind second place, but 12 games behind the leader of the division. In plain English, Warren lost ground on Sanders, number one but gain on number two. But is in a worse position than before the debate started.

One doesn't gain ground on beating up number two. One gains ground on beating or attacking number one. All one has to do is look back on the 2016 GOP NH primary when everyone attacked number two, leaving number one alone. After that debate there was no doubt Trump would be the nominee.
 
Perotista said:
In my opinion Warren didn't do herself any good as to winning the nomination by bashing Bloomberg. Sanders is clearly number one, the front runner, Bloomberg number two. Knocking down number two a bit while allowing number one to enhance his position is no way to gain the nomination.

It's like in baseball, your team enters the week 10 games behind the leader, 5 games out of second. After the week is over, the debate in this case. Now you're only 2 games behind second place, but 12 games behind the leader of the division. In plain English, Warren lost ground on Sanders, number one but gain on number two. But is in a worse position than before the debate started.

One doesn't gain ground on beating up number two. One gains ground on beating or attacking number one. All one has to do is look back on the 2016 GOP NH primary when everyone attacked number two, leaving number one alone. After that debate there was no doubt Trump would be the nominee.
Click to expand...

True, but Warren may have her eye on a (more realistic) shot of becoming the VP pick under Sanders.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
True, but Warren may have her eye on a (more realistic) shot of becoming the VP pick under Sanders.
Click to expand...

I thought about that. That's why I think Christie tore into Rubio in the GOP NH primary instead of going after Trump, the front runner. I don't think Warren as Sanders VP would work on the same ticket. No ideological balance, two far left progressives. No regional balance, both from the Northeast. Neither state is a swing state where the VP choice might enhance the chances of winning. I'm sure progressives would love it. Much like conservatives loved the Goldwater/Miller ticket. But at least that had regional balance. Arizona/New York.

Warren would do nothing for Sanders if he is the nominee. Numbers wise, no help whatsoever. If Sanders and the Dems want a woman, I'd go with Klobuchar, Minnesota. Regional balance and Klobuchar is from a state, Minnesota in which Hillary won by a mere 1.5% point. A swing state. Then there is Baldwin, Wisconsin, a state Trump won in 2016 and is currently leading in the polls there over any and all possible Democratic nominees.

Actually, I think Sanders will have a hard enough time living down his so called self description of himself as a Democratic Socialist against Trump. Trump is bound to make that one of his major campaign issues. If Trump succeeds in tying the socialist label to Sanders, whoever he chooses become irrelevant. Most Americans won't vote for a socialist. This leaves Sanders very vulnerable in my opinion. This hasn't been brought up before. This may be the reason the DNC is kind of leery of Sanders being their nominee. Just an opinion. Sanders calls himself a socialist and I'm sure that will get a lot of play come the general election campaign. Nothing like a tape of Sanders himself calling himself a Democratic Socialist. But we'll see.

"Socialism and Atheism Still U.S. Political Liabilities"

Socialism and Atheism Still U.S. Political Liabilities
 
Perotista said:
I thought about that. That's why I think Christie tore into Rubio in the GOP NH primary instead of going after Trump, the front runner. I don't think Warren as Sanders VP would work on the same ticket. No ideological balance, two far left progressives. No regional balance, both from the Northeast. Neither state is a swing state where the VP choice might enhance the chances of winning. I'm sure progressives would love it. Much like conservatives loved the Goldwater/Miller ticket. But at least that had regional balance. Arizona/New York.

Warren would do nothing for Sanders if he is the nominee. Numbers wise, no help whatsoever. If Sanders and the Dems want a woman, I'd go with Klobuchar, Minnesota. Regional balance and Klobuchar is from a state, Minnesota in which Hillary won by a mere 1.5% point. A swing state. Then there is Baldwin, Wisconsin, a state Trump won in 2016 and is currently leading in the polls there over any and all possible Democratic nominees.

Actually, I think Sanders will have a hard enough time living down his so called self description of himself as a Democratic Socialist against Trump. Trump is bound to make that one of his major campaign issues. If Trump succeeds in tying the socialist label to Sanders, whoever he chooses become irrelevant. Most Americans won't vote for a socialist. This leaves Sanders very vulnerable in my opinion. This hasn't been brought up before. This may be the reason the DNC is kind of leery of Sanders being their nominee. Just an opinion. Sanders calls himself a socialist and I'm sure that will get a lot of play come the general election campaign. Nothing like a tape of Sanders himself calling himself a Democratic Socialist. But we'll see.

"Socialism and Atheism Still U.S. Political Liabilities"

Socialism and Atheism Still U.S. Political Liabilities
Click to expand...

I guess I am just looking at it from the point of view of avoiding having the progressive (far left?) position (shared by Sanders and Warren) crushed at the DNC convention. If Sanders has DNC convention support at under 40% during round 1, I think he is not going to become the DNC nominee. Sanders having Warren's support during round 1 of the DNC convention would almost guarantee him over 40%, and possibly 45% to 47% - that may be the only way Sanders, and by extension the progressive (far left?), gets over the feeling of being snubbed and loads of them stay home during the 2020 general election (hurting down ballot demorat candidates). I share your concerns about getting independents to go for a progressive (far left?) POTUS candidate even among the "never Trump" portion of them.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
All Warren did (to gain much applause) was bash Bloomberg (while she took it easy on frontrunner Sanders) - why should that make Warren's policy positions (which are very close to those of Sanders) any more appealing? Warren's best bet would be to join team Sanders in exchange for being his VP pick.
Click to expand...
Warren cannot insult Bernie's base and hope to win them later. Bloomburg did not present that issue.
 
Perotista said:
In my opinion Warren didn't do herself any good as to winning the nomination by bashing Bloomberg. Sanders is clearly number one, the front runner, Bloomberg number two. Knocking down number two a bit while allowing number one to enhance his position is no way to gain the nomination.

It's like in baseball, your team enters the week 10 games behind the leader, 5 games out of second. After the week is over, the debate in this case. Now you're only 2 games behind second place, but 12 games behind the leader of the division. In plain English, Warren lost ground on Sanders, number one but gain on number two. But is in a worse position than before the debate started.

One doesn't gain ground on beating up number two. One gains ground on beating or attacking number one. All one has to do is look back on the 2016 GOP NH primary when everyone attacked number two, leaving number one alone. After that debate there was no doubt Trump would be the nominee.
Click to expand...

They're all jockeying around for a VP seat. Warren isn't going to win and she will not be on Bloomberg's ticket, so he's ok to attack. She thinks she could be the mate of Bernie or Biden for the political punch. Buttigieg and Klobacher are the same, not going to be the nominee but may be VP.
 
Perotista said:
Biden has been in a free fall. Buttigieg and Warren mostly in single digits with no help for neither in Nevada and South Carolina. Warren leads in one state come Super Tuesday, her home state. She's mostly in single digits in all the rest as is Buttigieg. Klobuchar isn't any better. Yeah, if the trend holds it will be between Sanders and Bloomberg after Super Tuesday. The rest unless someone makes a huge mistake or a major event or happening occurs, in my opinion have no chance of winning. They can hang on or withdraw, I don't think it makes much difference.
Click to expand...

The longer some stay around and keep the dem primaries splitting between 5-7 people the more likely Bernie wins.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I guess I am just looking at it from the point of view of avoiding having the progressive (far left?) position (shared by Sanders and Warren) crushed at the DNC convention. If Sanders has DNC convention support at under 40% during round 1, I think he is not going to become the DNC nominee. Sanders having Warren's support during round 1 of the DNC convention would almost guarantee him over 40%, and possibly 45% to 47% - that may be the only way Sanders, and by extension the progressive (far left?), gets over the feeling of being snubbed and loads of them stay home during the 2020 general election (hurting down ballot demorat candidates). I share your concerns about getting independents to go for a progressive (far left?) POTUS candidate even among the "never Trump" portion of them.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about an open or brokered convention, there hasn't been one since 1952. Our modern primary system almost guarantees there won't be another. There's no favorite son candidates anymore or smoke filled rooms where candidates try to obtain each state's political bosses approval of them. There were only 10-15 primaries back then, some of them non-binding.

Looking at the the Super Tuesday States, Sanders has a huge lead in California and Vermont. Sanders leads in Texas, North Carolina, Maine, Virginia, Utah, Colorado. Warren has Massachusetts, Klobuchar is ahead in Minnesota, Bloomberg leads in Oklahoma. Those are the only Super Tuesday states I have polls on. A third of the Democratic delegates will be decided on Super Tuesday. I have nothing on Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee.

If Sanders were to win those states he leads on Super Tuesday, he'll have close to an insurmountable lead. Everything is proportional in the democratic party primary system. some other big states later on, Sanders lead in Illinois, second to Bloomberg in Florida, second to Biden in Georgia. Sanders has a huge lead in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, second to Biden in New York.

Even a second place finish earns around 35-40% of the delegates. Maybe more if no other candidates receive 15% of the vote. Unless Sanders makes a huge mistake or some unforeseen event or happening occurs, if this trend holds, Sanders will have enough delegates by the end of April if not before. At least he'll have an insurmountable lead and will be the presumptive nominee.

I'm not saying things can't change, they can in a heartbeat. But if the current trend continues at least through Super Tuesday or the end of March, I don't see anyone stopping Sanders.
 
Integrityrespec said:
They're all jockeying around for a VP seat. Warren isn't going to win and she will not be on Bloomberg's ticket, so he's ok to attack. She thinks she could be the mate of Bernie or Biden for the political punch. Buttigieg and Klobacher are the same, not going to be the nominee but may be VP.
Click to expand...

I don't see Sanders picking Warren. I may be old fashioned here, but a Warren pick would offer no ideological balance, no regional balance, no opportunity to pick up a swing state with the VP choice. Klobachar would be in my opinion the better choice for Sanders if he must pick one of the candidates now still in the running. Hillary won Minnesota by a mere 1.5% in 2016. Klobachar gives regional, ideological balance to the ticket, plus sowing up a swing state.
 
Perotista said:
I don't see Sanders picking Warren. I may be old fashioned here, but a Warren pick would offer no ideological balance, no regional balance, no opportunity to pick up a swing state with the VP choice. Klobachar would be in my opinion the better choice for Sanders if he must pick one of the candidates now still in the running. Hillary won Minnesota by a mere 1.5% in 2016. Klobachar gives regional, ideological balance to the ticket, plus sowing up a swing state.
Click to expand...

I honestly think he and Klobuchar already know she is his VP. She is in this race still with no hope of winning and, as I keep saying, the longer she is in the more likely Bernie gets the nomination. At this point she knows she hasn't won many delegates, she knows she isn't polling to win any state other than Minnesota and those delegates are to ensure Biden/Pete don't get them. After she steals a few delegates away on Super Tuesday and ensures Bernie has a lead she'll drop - and shortly after the primaries he'll announce her. These two know what they are doing.
 
Kreton said:
I honestly think he and Klobuchar already know she is his VP. She is in this race still with no hope of winning and, as I keep saying, the longer she is in the more likely Bernie gets the nomination. At this point she knows she hasn't won many delegates, she knows she isn't polling to win any state other than Minnesota and those delegates are to ensure Biden/Pete don't get them. After she steals a few delegates away on Super Tuesday and ensures Bernie has a lead she'll drop - and shortly after the primaries he'll announce her. These two know what they are doing.
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me.
 
Kreton said:
I honestly think he and Klobuchar already know she is his VP. She is in this race still with no hope of winning and, as I keep saying, the longer she is in the more likely Bernie gets the nomination. At this point she knows she hasn't won many delegates, she knows she isn't polling to win any state other than Minnesota and those delegates are to ensure Biden/Pete don't get them. After she steals a few delegates away on Super Tuesday and ensures Bernie has a lead she'll drop - and shortly after the primaries he'll announce her. These two know what they are doing.
Click to expand...

He would be very, very smart to pick her. I agree with this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom