Biden maintains lead over 2020 contenders as Warren passes Sanders: poll

[Chomsky]

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden remains the front-runner among the 2020 Democratic contenders, but Sen. Elizabeth Warren is on the move, passing Sen. Bernard Sanders for second place, according to a Monmouth University poll released Wednesday.

Mr. Biden had support from 32% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents - in line with his 33% support from last month.

Ms. Warren, meanwhile, is now at 15% - up 5 points from last month - and Mr. Sanders was at 14% support.

Sen. Kamala Harris was next at 8%, followed by South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 5%.

Source: (Washington Times) Biden maintains lead over 2020 contenders as Warren passes Sanders: poll

What caught my eye here was not Biden's lead, but rather Warren moving past Sanders into 2nd place! This - in my opinion - was wholly unexpected, very much surprising me. And it's been reflected in three recent polls this week, including this one.

But this does seem to perhaps set-up a nice ticket, in my opinion. While I was hoping for Harris as VP, I think Warren would perhaps be an even better veep in terms of the Dems election performance. Obviously I'm basing this ticket upon Biden prevailing, though there's no guarantee of that. In my opinion (again), Biden looks a bit lackluster, equivocal, and prevaricating.

 

[Surrealistik]

Source: (Washington Times) Biden maintains lead over 2020 contenders as Warren passes Sanders: poll

What caught my eye here was not Biden's lead, but rather Warren moving past Sanders into 2nd place! This - in my opinion - was wholly unexpected, very much surprising me. And it's been reflected in three recent polls this week, including this one.

But this does seem to perhaps set-up a nice ticket, in my opinion. While I was hoping for Harris as VP, I think Warren would perhaps be an even better veep in terms of the Dems election performance. Obviously I'm basing this ticket upon Biden prevailing, though there's no guarantee of that. In my opinion (again), Biden looks a bit lackluster, equivocal, and prevaricating.

Personally I hope either Warren or Bernie drops out to support the other and consolidate the progressive vote (preferably Warren as I trust her less for various reasons, a seeming lack of commitment to MFA being one). If they joined forces and pooled resources, they'd surely put Biden to rest.

 

[Rexedgar]

Source: (Washington Times) Biden maintains lead over 2020 contenders as Warren passes Sanders: poll

What caught my eye here was not Biden's lead, but rather Warren moving past Sanders into 2nd place! This - in my opinion - was wholly unexpected, very much surprising me. And it's been reflected in three recent polls this week, including this one.

But this does seem to perhaps set-up a nice ticket, in my opinion. While I was hoping for Harris as VP, I think Warren would perhaps be an even better veep in terms of the Dems election performance. Obviously I'm basing this ticket upon Biden prevailing, though there's no guarantee of that. In my opinion (again), Biden looks a bit lackluster, equivocal, and prevaricating.

The missus likes Warren @ Treasury.

I hate to agree with Trump’s observations of Joe, but....

 

[Phys251]

Source: (Washington Times) Biden maintains lead over 2020 contenders as Warren passes Sanders: poll

What caught my eye here was not Biden's lead, but rather Warren moving past Sanders into 2nd place! This - in my opinion - was wholly unexpected, very much surprising me. And it's been reflected in three recent polls this week, including this one.

But this does seem to perhaps set-up a nice ticket, in my opinion. While I was hoping for Harris as VP, I think Warren would perhaps be an even better veep in terms of the Dems election performance. Obviously I'm basing this ticket upon Biden prevailing, though there's no guarantee of that. In my opinion (again), Biden looks a bit lackluster, equivocal, and prevaricating.

Warren has a plan for literally everything she's been asked about. Intelligence counts for a lot on our side of the aisle, and I think that's what's attracting people to her.

 

[Chomsky]

Personally I hope either Warren or Bernie drops out to support the other and consolidate the progressive vote (preferably Warren as I trust her less for various reasons, a seeming lack of commitment to MFA being one). If they joined forces and pooled resources, they'd surely put Biden to rest.

Interesting idea, and you may indeed be right, at least in terms of draw within the Dem Party.

I'm constantly torn between going Trump-like and focusing on the base, or trying to expand into the Indies. Traditionally, the path to the White House involved the latter. But Trump prevailed by doing the former.

In today's current hyper-partisanship environment where there isn't much movement outside the parties, it may indeed be better for Dems to focus withing themselves and drive out the base. There's more Dems than Repubs. I'm finding myself now questioning decades of historical principle, and not finding it easy. But we live, function, and seize victory by living in the moment, and I'm not sure the old ways are currently working. I'm saddened by it though, I'll tell you that.

 

[Crovax]

Warren has a plan for literally everything she's been asked about. Intelligence counts for a lot on our side of the aisle, and I think that's what's attracting people to her.

Having a plan doesn’t mean intelligence, a stupid plan is still stupid

 

[Chomsky]

Warren has a plan for literally everything she's been asked about. Intelligence counts for a lot on our side of the aisle, and I think that's what's attracting people to her.

Yep. Agreed.

I pretty much support the majority of Warren's policies, and would love to see her behind the Resolute Desk. But I've had problems with believing she has the personal charisma to beat Trump. However after watching Joe Biden seemingly falling a bit short in charisma himself lately, I do find I'm warming-up a bit more to Warren as our candidate.

 

[Surrealistik]

Interesting idea, and you may indeed be right, at least in terms of draw within the Dem Party.

I'm constantly torn between going Trump-like and focusing on the base, or trying to expand into the Indies. Traditionally, the path to the White House involved the latter. But Trump prevailed by doing the former.

In today's current hyper-partisanship environment where there isn't much movement outside the parties, it may indeed be better for Dems to focus withing themselves and drive out the base. There's more Dems than Repubs. I'm finding myself now questioning decades of historical principle, and not finding it easy. But we live, function, and seize victory by living in the moment, and I'm not sure the old ways are currently working. I'm saddened by it though, I'll tell you that.

Thing is, progressive policy is actually extremely popular with the indies, so I don't think appealing to the general population and satisfying the base is in the Dem case mutually exclusive whatsoever.

Never forget that in large part, Trump won in on a platform of economic populism and prescriptions for fixing what ails the working class, even if he didn't follow through because he's a corrupt, self-serving sack of ****; there's a good reason he took the Rust Belt and toppled the so-called blue wall.

 

[pilot16]

Interesting idea, and you may indeed be right, at least in terms of draw within the Dem Party.

I'm constantly torn between going Trump-like and focusing on the base, or trying to expand into the Indies. Traditionally, the path to the White House involved the latter. But Trump prevailed by doing the former.

In today's current hyper-partisanship environment where there isn't much movement outside the parties, it may indeed be better for Dems to focus withing themselves and drive out the base. There's more Dems than Repubs. I'm finding myself now questioning decades of historical principle, and not finding it easy. But we live, function, and seize victory by living in the moment, and I'm not sure the old ways are currently working. I'm saddened by it though, I'll tell you that.

Dems have two paths. One is to invigorate and grow the base. Get out the vote and push for progressive solutions like single payer etc. The other path is to stay moderate and try to bring in all those indies and NeverTrumpers. But then a lot less gets done in the future. Both have their pros and cons in the age of Trump.

 

[pilot16]

Yep. Agreed.

I pretty much support the majority of Warren's policies, and would love to see her behind the Resolute Desk. But I've had problems with believing she has the personal charisma to beat Trump. However after watching Joe Biden seemingly falling a bit short in charisma himself lately, I do find I'm warming-up a bit more to Warren as our candidate.

My concerns with Warren actually arent with her but with her senate seat. Can she hold it and run for pres if she is the nominee? And if so, her replacement will be made by a GOP governor in a state where special elections arent always easy.

 

[Phys251]

Yep. Agreed.

I pretty much support the majority of Warren's policies, and would love to see her behind the Resolute Desk. But I've had problems with believing she has the personal charisma to beat Trump. However after watching Joe Biden seemingly falling a bit short in charisma himself lately, I do find I'm warming-up a bit more to Warren as our candidate.

Charisma is a funny thing. Sanders has about as much charisma as a JC Penney store yet still managed to make the 2016 Democratic primary much closer than most people expected.

 

[pilot16]

Thing is, progressive policy is actually extremely popular with the indies, so I don't think appealing to the general population and satisfying the base is in the Dem case mutually exclusive whatsoever.

Never forget that in large part, Trump won in on a platform of economic populism and prescriptions for fixing what ails the working class, even if he didn't follow through because he's a corrupt, self-serving sack of ****; there's a good reason he took the Rust Belt and toppled the so-called blue wall.

Trump literally ran a Sanders campaign in the rust belt, railing on NAFTA, TPP and tariffs. They like that stuff there as did old school union democrats all over. Now with more corporate aligned dems they are pro trade and against tariffs which rubs those union members the wrong way. Plus lets not also forget the millennials will be hitting 40 in 2020 and they will be out to vote and they are progressive.

 

[Phys251]

My concerns with Warren actually arent with her but with her senate seat. Can she hold both? And if so, her replacement will be made by a GOP governor in a state where special elections arent always easy.

The 2010 special election had several dynamics that worked against the Democrats' favor, particularly a Democratic candidate that lost in a tortoise-beats-hare fashion. Warren didn't make that mistake in 2012 and knocked off the folksy Scott Brown.

IDK which party Massachusetts' moderate Republican governor would pick to fill Warren's seat until 2022. Maybe he'd pull a Chris Christie and appoint a Democrat.

 

[Surrealistik]

Trump literally ran a Sanders campaign in the rust belt, railing on NAFTA, TPP and tariffs. They like that stuff there as did old school union democrats all over. Now with more corporate aligned dems they are pro trade and against tariffs which rubs those union members the wrong way. Plus lets not also forget the millennials will be hitting 40 in 2020 and they will be out to vote and they are progressive.

It wasn't just protectionism though that got him there (though this was certainly a big part of it), but resolute promises to bring back the jobs, and reinvigorate manufacturing.

 

[pilot16]

The 2010 special election had several dynamics that worked against the Democrats' favor, particularly a Democratic candidate that lost in a tortoise-beats-hare fashion. Warren didn't make that mistake in 2012 and knocked off the folksy Scott Brown.

IDK which party Massachusetts' moderate Republican governor would pick to fill Warren's seat until 2022. Maybe he'd pull a Chris Christie and appoint a Democrat.

I think seriously it could be Bill Weld as they are friends. That could mean that seat would stay red.

 

[Hatuey]

If we want to win, we can't continue with a gerontocracy. If you are within 10 years of the US life expectancy, you should automatically be disqualified. That's not to say that old people are useless. It's not say that you should get no say in how we run things if you are old. Its to say that you should get no say in how we run things when you won't be here to see how it screws us all over and we can take you to task for it.


Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.

 

[pilot16]

It wasn't just protectionism though that got him there (though this was certainly a big part of it), but resolute promises to bring back the jobs, and reinvigorate manufacturing.

Right but it all involved the blue collar sector. Few college suburbanites voted for him. His base was the blue collared ones. He would have won big in New England had we not had such a large group of educated people with advanced degrees. Most of the old school union dems here voted for Trump. Even saw a union hall with his lawn sign out front.

 

[pilot16]

If we want to win, we can't continue with a gerontocracy. If you are within 10 years of the US life expectancy, you should automatically be disqualified. That's not to say that old people are useless. It's not say that you should get no say in how we run things if you are old. Its to say that you should get no say in how we run things when you won't be here to see how it screws us all over and we can take you to task for it.


Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.

Thats why I still think its possible Buttigieg sneaks in. He and Biden will be next to each other as I recall in the debate. Its like "here is the D party in 1980 and here is the D party in 2020." I originally thought it would be Beto but he went nutty.

 

[Chomsky]

Thing is, progressive policy is actually extremely popular with the indies, so I don't think appealing to the general population and satisfying the base is in the Dem case mutually exclusive whatsoever.

Never forget that in large part, Trump won in on a platform of economic populism and prescriptions for fixing what ails the working class, even if he didn't follow through because he's a corrupt, self-serving sack of ****; there's a good reason he took the Rust Belt and toppled the so-called blue wall.

You make a reasonable argument here, because we indeed are seeing Sanders poll well in places like Iowa. And Iowa is not Massachusetts or California! Hell, even Colorado has become fairly liberal recently. So I'm definitely open to your point.

 

[Phys251]

I think seriously it could be Bill Weld as they are friends. That could mean that seat would stay red.

It's possible. But let's keep in mind that the Democrats are going to have a tough time taking back the Senate anyway.

The 2022 Senate map is far more favorable to Democrats, however.

 

[Trump]

Warren gamed the system with fake Indian heritage ....woke Dems will never give her a pass..

 

[Surrealistik]

Right but it all involved the blue collar sector. Few college suburbanites voted for him. His base was the blue collared ones. He would have won big in New England had we not had such a large group of educated people with advanced degrees. Most of the old school union dems here voted for Trump. Even saw a union hall with his lawn sign out front.

Sure. The point is that advocating policy in solidarity with the working class is a demonstrable winner, at least in most contested battlefield states that are crucial to success, and progressive, populist policy cleaves to this definition.

 

[Hatuey]

Thats why I still think its possible Buttigieg sneaks in. He and Biden will be next to each other as I recall in the debate. Its like "here is the D party in 1980 and here is the D party in 2020." I originally thought it would be Beto but he went nutty.

It should be based on reasonable expectations that the person in charge will be here in 10 years to answer for their mistakes. Trump won't be here in 10 years. Not consciously anyways. Biden either.

If we keep electing people who have higher chances of dying than being elected, we will never rule efficiently. Have someone who will be here for the next 20-30 years be our president, and let's see how things change.



Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.

 

[pilot16]

It should be based on reasonable expectations that the person in charge will be here in 10 years to answer for their mistakes. Trump won't be here in 10 years. Not consciously anyways. Biden either.

If we keep electing people who have higher chances of dying than being elected, we will never rule efficiently. Have someone who will be here for the next 20-30 years be our president, and let's see how things change.



Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.

Well how old have democratic presidents been since WWII when elected? I cant find any older than 56 or 57. It seems the voters like young candidates.

 

[Chomsky]

Dems have two paths. One is to invigorate and grow the base. Get out the vote and push for progressive solutions like single payer etc. The other path is to stay moderate and try to bring in all those indies and NeverTrumpers. But then a lot less gets done in the future. Both have their pros and cons in the age of Trump.

I've always believed in leading the country from the middle. In real life, I like to bring people together. I won't compromise my core principles, but I do what it takes to bring individuals and groups together to achieve progress. Doing this has served me well personally, socially, and professionally.

Politically though, only with certain exceptions, my public policies are generally progressive. If we can effect a hard shift progressively, something that's very unusual through common political practice, I'll do it. Just recently, I think I'm starting to believe now might be the time to try to make a break, a non-continuous shift, Leftward

When I was doing local street politics in the city at the ward & precinct level, everything was focused on identifying your supporters, and getting them to the polls. Getting/taking voters to the polling place was the crux of the matter. It was all about (your) turnout.

Nationally, only around half of us vote. Also, national elections are generally won within a 4 or 6 point spread, which means it only takes a 2-3 pt flip to toss the election the other way. As partisan and unchanging as everyone seems to be today, I'm now wondering if it's become easier to excite the base for those few points needed, rather than try to get them from the middle or other side.