20 Democrats have qualified for the first debates on June 26-27

Full analysis by 538 on how the DNC is using a combination of polling data & donor contributions to determine debate eligibility:

Why cant the dnc stick to the top six candidates instead of all 20 candidates doing a rap battle of policy platforms.

I'm baffled that Mayor Pete is being treated as a serious candidate.

None of these three was ever on anyone's radar.

Why even bother unless it was to raise their name recognition.

I don't think he can win, but his recent polling would suggest he is a serious candidate now r3.

What's a manageable number when it comes to these things, anyway? Do we think DNC is freaking out right now, wishing it had set the parameters even higher? Can you still win without attending these debates?

r3 Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang both qualified, but you're singling Pete out?

R3 democrats are desperate for anyone even if they cant win. Hell you can run and be treated as a serious candidate. It is all an irrational fear.

The DNC setting the qualifying for the second debate even more difficult. Many more won't make it.

[quote]Montana Governor Steve Bullock, Rep. Seth Moulton, and former Senator Mike Gravel are the only 3 candidates who 538 predicts won't make the cut.

Tell 538 I hate your mother! Tell 538 I HATE YOU!

Bullock not making it is such a shock. Maybe he'll qualify for the 2nd. debate in July.

I guess it was the third debate they made more difficult to qualify for, not the second debate. Could have sworn I heard the second debate would be tougher to qualify for but whatever.

What are they going to debate? They all agree on everything.

They agree on fundamentals but there are a lot of disagreements on the detaIls, R12, and on what it takes to defeat Trump and take back the Senate.

Who are they going to debate? They're DEMOCRATS (well most of them are), they can ALWAYS find something to debate each other about.

Enjoy the numbers while you can, its about to get halved after June debates...

The only candidates I want to hear from are Pete, Bullock, and Yang.

Congress should pass a law that says you can’t run for president unless you’ve held public office governor, representative, or senator.

r16 is a strange bird.

r17 A mayor's (and a governor's) job is closer to the president's than a parliamentarian's. Apart from foreign policy, it's basically exactly the same!

Honestly, the lack of executive experience on the part of some representatives and senators is way more disconcerting to me.

Bullock needs to run for the Senate in Montana. But he's been told that over and over again. Sigh. (Seat up this Nov.)

R20, it's also puzzling that John Hickenlooper is running for the Presidential nomination when he could be running for the Senate seat against vulnerable Republican Cory Gardner in Colorado next year.

He's polling at 1% in the Presidential race, but as a former 2-Term Governor of Colorado he would have a good chance of beating Gardner.

Bullock and Hickenlooper need to put their egos aside and run for the Senate.

Okay, time to pick the dark horse who will make a big splash at the debates. Also, who will embarrass themselves?

Not sure on who the dark horse will be yet, but the embarrassment will either be Beto or Booker (comes across as buffoons) or Kirsten G (lack of any sense of humor). Of course, if DeBlasio makes the cut, all bets are off.

R18 watch all three candidates. They aren’t spewing same old exhausting unelectable Democratic talking points.

The Dark Horse will be one of O'Rourke, Castro, or Swalwell.

Obviously the top candidates are Biden, Sanders, Harris, Warren, and Buttigieg

Booker, KG, AK, Castro, Beto will be gone from the race soon.

Don't forget Beto, R22.

Marianne Williamson but not Steve Bullock?

It will be interesting to see if Bullock calls it quits. This is such a blow to his aspirations.

Bullock won in a Trump state. Yet, he’s off the stage. The perfect reason why the elitist Democratic Party cannot be run by the coasts.

Pete, Kamala and Liz are the only ones I want to hear.

Beautiful, R31.

Bullock is the candidate we need to win, but the Dems would rather pander to the Twitter mafia and end up with 4 more years of Trump.

[quote]Bullock is the candidate we need to win

Good morning, Svetlana. "We" mean you Russian trolls?

R34 take your meds, Gurl! Not everyone who isn’t deluded enough to think Kamala could “easily win” the Midwest is a Russian Troll...

Is there diplomatic immunity for an American president who has gay sex in an anti-gay country?

R35 seems so massively triggered that her 400 pounds cause a small tremor in Saint Petersburg.

Anyone/anything but Trump. Please don't try to divide us, Svetlana.

R37 is clearly a paranoid schizophrenic

[quote]I'm baffled that Mayor Pete is being treated as a serious candidate.

More qualified that Trump. Why on. At least he is smart, quick on his feet, progressive and served his country. Young enough to handle the stress of the job and react quickly. That's exactly what you want in a President.

Even if he doesn't win, he raises the bar for the other candidates.

R38 is obviously an ugly obese Russian troll.

Anyone/anything but Trump. Dems only, no matter who.

Ditto R 40, I dont care who winds the Democratic nomination, I will vote for anyone but Trump. The worst Dem is still 100 times better than our current POTUS.

And some bitches here have to be so anal retentive that it must be this particular candidate or that so and so that we can win. Stop clenching your fat gigantic ass and go out to vote for anyone/anything the Dems will nominate.

No, it's not the fucking privileged position, but it's the survival of the whole damn world. Or you can just wait for the bloodthirsty John Bolton to push the nuclear button for the demented Trump after his re-election.

R34 Boris, Bullock can appeal to the Trump voter. They voted for him for Governor. Warren, Kamala, Booker, Castro, KG, AK, Beto cannot.

It's really self-defeating to pick a nominee because he/she will appeal to the Repugs. Just have faith in our nominee and believe in our judgment to vote for him/her, no matter who. We don't want a president who will kowtow to the NRA, the evangelicals, the pro-birth or the rightwing nuts.

Stop splitting our votes like you did in 2016 for that skank Jill Stein, Svetlana. What did you say back then - the protest votes, right? Now you're trying to make people angry if Steve Bullock doesn't get the nomination. Not again, Svetlana.

Democratic candidates must appeal to Repugs because they can't count on Democrats to vote.

That will never happen R45. Repugs stick together like shit to flys.

Democrats should believe in their own values and vote Dems all the way, no matter what and no matter who. Stop pandering to the Repugs. Bullock won in one red state, doesn't mean he will win in all red states. It's fool's paradise there. Like Hillary deluded that she could win in Arizona, that really cracked me up. Robby Mook was a joke.

[quote]because they can't count on Democrats to vote.

Shut your stinking trap now, Svetlana. Stop dividing us!

r26, and Mayor Pete will be out long before the nomination is decided.

Love the fat old Queens at their HP desktops accusing each other of being Russian.

[quote ]if DeBlasio makes the cut, all bets are off.

How is he even in the list?

Did they leave off Pat Paulsen in error?

If he didn’t make it, I’ll be disappointed.

Jesus Christ, now there's a Bullock troll? This is just getting pathetic. The top 5 are the only ones who matter. And what about the Senate? Saw an item last night that 8 Republican Senators running for re-election have no Democratic challenger currently. WTF is the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee doing?

r51, 1968 called and wants its joke back.

Hardly 1968, r53. I was surprised to learn he ran all the way up until 1996 and came in second to Bill.

I find it hard to believe de Blasio made the cut.

I’m shocked r55. Truly shocked.

I heard Oprah made the cut so did AOC.

Shit, no Senator Gravel? Damn, I was hoping he'd be our first nonagenarian president. So what if he could barely see or hear and thinks books are trees, I say we're ready for a president in their 90s!

I concur! r58

That's why I'm a Biden guy, he's only 76, a full year younger than Bernie!

I'm voting Gen X or Millennial in 2020. Biden/Bernie lovers deserve 4 more years of Trump.

why the hell would you limit it to the top 6 candidates? Only serious political junkies know most of these candidates at this point and even fewer know where they stand on the issues. By limiting it to the top 6 you are just only including those that have vague name recognition by the masses or have been around for 30 years. Is that the way you want to narrow the field?

So we get to hear 19 people attack Joe Biden? Wonderful, the one candidate who is consistently killing Trump in the polls vs 19 people.

picking a democrat to appeal to republican voters is how clinton lost in 2016. She lost because she was a corporate eiltist whore, had no poltiical insticts, ran a lousy campaign, and had no message to the people except incremental change would be her motto. No she didnt lose because she was a woman and no she didnt lose because the russsian bogeyman swung the election. Its a MYTH that there is a vast middle that will vote for either a repubican or a democrat. Registered republicans vote for republicans, period. They dont vote for Joe Biden. Trump has a 42% approval rating, not that bad. The dems need their best A game in a candidate. They HAVE to have the left wing of the party and the under 30 voters out in masses to vote on election day and they dont do that with a republican appealing democrat.

Agreed. The Dems don't really need a governor from a red state as their nominee. Those Repugs who will change their minds will be the intelligent and open-minded ones. We only need a candidate who can connect with them via the right message. It's all about policies: universal healthcare, economic stability, affordable college education and retirement security.

And I also agreed that Tim Kaine was the worst choice for VP whom Hillary could have picked, a massive turnoff. People could tolerate Hillary, but Tim Kaine as her successor --- NO NO NO NO!

r65, yes because that Fascist Pence was so much better.

Official DNC announcement:

Moderators:

Savannah Guthrie

Lester Holt

Chuck Todd

José Díaz-Balart

Rachel Maddow

The debate will take place in Miami over two nights, June 26-27, with 10 candidates appearing each night

The debate is split into two nights r63. There aren't going to be 20 people on a stage, it will be 10 and 10.

Thanks r70.

[Quote]Bullock won in a Trump state. Yet, he’s off the stage. The perfect reason why the elitist Democratic Party cannot be run by the coasts.

How stupid are you? Qualifying for the debates is very transparent criteria. That is why 538 knew who the DNC would say. People have to give money to your campaign or you have to do okay in some polls.

It's not the DNCs fault that Bullock's campaign went nowhere dear. Marianne could manage to meet the requirements and Bullock couldn't manage it, that's his failure.

So, will the superstars be split among the two nights? You could end up with Biden , Bernie, Warren, Pete, etc. on one night and The Ten Little Dwarves on the next?

R66 Yes, Pence was much better during the VP debate and for the Repugs. What a disastrous choice you made, Robby Mook. Please try not to inveigle your way into Mayor Pete's campaign this time either. You are a lame joke.

I see Svetlana, the pro-Bullock obese Russian troll is still hard at work, foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog, trying to divide our votes still.

Time to clear your douchebag, Svetlana.

[quote]Yes, Pence was much better during the VP debate and for the Repugs.

Post-debate polling on the VP debate did give the win to Pence over Kaine, but it was a narrow win.

By contrast, Hillary won all 3 debate polls against Trump.

Steve Bullock, Gov. of Montana, would have been a good addition to the debates. Being from Montana, he's just not known enough yet. Plus, he explained he's been busy as Governor and had very little time right now to travel and do fundraising. He has some very good ideas.

By contrast, Bernie Sanders is use to not showing regularly for his Senate job.

You Russian trolls really think Harris a Dreamer Sanctuary cityslicker can beat Trump in the South and Midwest? You jest. And Warren is worse. Biden, Pete, and Bullock are the only candidates with a slim chance of winning. Biden will apologize for 40 years of legislative fuckups on his way out the door.

The Democratic Party has become a joke with all these freaking candidates jumping in as though it were a swimming pool. It's become a cesspool.

I'm happy to see a strong showing with so many good candidates debating the future of the Democratic Party.

So much better than the coronation of 2016.

20 candidates and not one is qualified for the office of President.

20 candidates and every single one more qualified than the narcissistic buffoon who currently holds that office.

The Ringling Brothers museum has agreed to provide a car to transport the debaters.

Tom Perez needs to strangle some of these so-called candidates and dump them from the race. Ridiculous egos.

R76 - but I was talking about Tim Kaine and his dreadful personality.

Stay on topic, Mook, or take some attention deficit meds. Your campaign was an epic fail, just admit it.

[quote]20 candidates and every single one more qualified than the narcissistic buffoon who currently holds that office.

So true. 100 100 100

[quote]So much better than the coronation of 2016

DNC wants another coronation - for Joe Biden.

Steve Bullock looked like a winner but the stupid DNC blocked him before he could even begin. The DNC would rather have Trump win then someone that is not part of the clueless, losing, corrupt DNC strategy.

Damn I liked Steve Bullock

WIthout Bullock, the West Coast East Coast idiots lose. No Biden.

Anyone/anything but Trump. Any of these 20, whatever, just Democrat.

Love them all!!! Please vote Dems all the way!!!

No one blocked Bullock from anything, He [bold]failed[/bold]

His campaign manager needs to quit going on his deranged meth bender here and figure out why they are sucking.

r78, you poor deluded fool. Pete has NO CHANCE to win. He's way too young and he's gay and married. You really think most of the voters in this country will feel comfortable voting for a man AND HIS HUSBAND to live in their White House? Not gonna happen. Not in 2020.

R92 Just vote and anything can happen in 2020. Anything but Trump.

[quote]but the stupid DNC blocked him before he could even begin.

The DNC hasn't "blocked" anyone. They set an incredibly low bar for this first debate and Bullock couldn't meet it. The rules were clear and easy. Bullock's campaign team didn't get going and couldn't find the people or the money to support him. That's on Bullock, not on the DNC. Deal with it and move on.

[quote]The DNC would rather have Trump win then someone that is not part of the clueless, losing, corrupt DNC strategy.

Oh, dear!

[quote]The DNC would rather have Trump win then someone that is not part of the clueless, losing, corrupt DNC strategy.

Svetlana, your Yandex translation is broken, bitch!

"THAN" you losers. It is called a typo. Some people have to WORK and are tired when they post on DL in the evening.

The only LOSERS on this thread are the extremely dull and stupid who think it is brilliant to say "BORIS" "Svetlana" etc.

No, the DNC wanted Bullock to run for the Senate only. He disobeyed by running for President, so they left him out of the debate. They want a coronation for Biden.

They will have to "deal with and move on" when Trump is re-elected.

Presented without comment:

[quote]Bullock is the candidate we need to win, but the Dems would rather pander to the Twitter mafia and end up with 4 more years of Trump.

[quote]R34 take your meds, Gurl! Not everyone who isn’t deluded enough to think Kamala could “easily win” the Midwest is a Russian Troll...

[quote]R37 is clearly a paranoid schizophrenic

[quote]Love the fat old Queens at their HP desktops accusing each other of being Russian.

[quote]“What da Cis-?” Ways to ask someone’s biological gender...

[quote]Joe Biden (The Democratic Dan Quayle) - Can ol’ Joe pull it off? Really just starting this thread to get old caftan Queens into a tizzy accusing me of being a Russian Troll.

Thank you R99 for exposing this hideous troll again!

More than most of his Democratic rivals, Mr. Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., has cracked the code of the early months of the presidential campaign, embracing TV appearances while mastering the art of creating moments for social media and cable news. The 37-year-old’s campaign was the first to grasp that the early primary race would unfold on mobile devices and televisions instead of at the traditional town-hall gatherings and in living rooms in the early states.

How Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren Cracked the Code of the 2020 Race

He’s not alone: Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has inundated reporters with policy proposals, prompting hours of cable news coverage and forcing fellow candidates to respond to her ideas during live interviews.

Over the first six months of the presidential campaign, Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Warren have outmaneuvered the other 21 Democratic candidates, demonstrating an innate understanding of the value of viral moments and nonstop exposure that drive politics in the Trump era.

Muriel can you please red tag this idiot who pretends to not understand the simple rules to qualify for the debate? It's going to be a long election season and ain't nobody got time for that.

Castro is my Dark Horse pick.

My somewhat limited understanding of the first debate is the names to go on the first night will be drawn out of a hat (random). The remaining ten will go on the second night.

But I could be wildly off base.

[quote]Castro is my Dark Horse pick.

Tee hee.

i would rather shoot myself in the head that watch ANY of this bullshit.

Trump won't like the Democrats getting all this attention, the infant will demand attention, but what will Trump do to take the attention off the debates, declare war with Iran? Declare martial law? Invade Mexico?

Any comment on the debate order, announced today?

[quote]June 26: Booker, Castro, de Blasio, Delaney, Gabbard, Inslee, Klobuchar, O’Rourke, Ryan, Warren

[quote]June 27: Bennet, Biden, Buttigieg, Gillibrand, Harris, Hickenlooper, Sanders, Swalwell, Williamson, Yang

Seems like Warren was placed in a pisition where she could shine with little opposition. Would rather have had her paired with the front runners.

Of the 5 "big dog" candidates, 4 of them are in night two.

Do candidates usually go after each other in the first debate already, or is that reserved for later?

R80 = Bernie Sanders

Warren will easily outshine everyone in her round. And Mayor Pete will do exceedingly well in his.

But I do wish all of them the best of luck and may they pull through without any major hiccups. Vote Dems all the way!!!

R107, Are you sure those names were randomly picked? I find that very hard to swallow.

I hope Biden and Harris go after Bernie's lying ass.

I don’t know Delaney, Bennett, or Williamson

I mean randomly sorting 20 names into 2 groups is likely to resort in something like this r113. If the bigger names were perfectly distributed that would be an indication it was purposeful, not random.

Good point, R116.

It seems like Warren was given the plum spot of the first day and against nobodies. She's going to get all the media attention before the front runners even take the stage. The DNC has anointed her.

Let the Battle Royale begin!!!!!! Yeah sure, Svetlana, this was bloody fixed.

Each of the candidates’ names were written on pieces of paper, folded in half, and placed in the appropriate box. The names were drawn from the boxes one by one and affixed onto one of two easels with tape.

Mr. Sanders was the first candidate whose name was drawn, and soon after Mr. Biden’s name was placed onto the same easel, quickly stratifying the debate groups. “Once they pulled Biden, all the air went out of the room,” said a person present.

Amy Klobuchar is in Warren's group. I still think she will start to impress a lot of people once she starts talking.

Warren’s consolation prize

By chance, Warren was left out of the debate featuring most of the other top-polling candidates — [strong]an unlucky draw[/strong], according to many Democratic strategists.

But NBC News’ decision to run her debate on the first night, when viewership is expected to be high no matter who is participating, is a consolation prize for the surging Massachusetts senator.

[quote]“Once they pulled Biden, all the air went out of the room,” said a person present.

I don't understand this statement.

[quote]R107, Are you sure those names were randomly picked? I find that very hard to swallow.

Agree. The first night is obviously second tier, except Warren.

[quote]Tom Perez needs to strangle some of these so-called candidates and dump them from the race. Ridiculous egos.

Bernie first, please.

[quote]Let the Battle Royale begin!!!!!! Yeah sure, Svetlana, this was bloody fixed.

It was definitely not fixed.

And no candidates will be given questions ahead of time either.

Oh, Svetlana tried so hard to divide us, and yet still failed miserably. ROFLMAO!!!

What a sad, wretched life of an ugly obese troll in St Petersburg.

Pete and Yang will embarrass Biden and Sanders. The other candidates won't matter.

What is Pete doing on the second night, he's clearly second tier as well.

Moron, had Bullock met the (very low) bar set for the candidates, he'd be in the debates. He couldn't do it. Funny how you keep ignoring that inconvenient fact.

Depends on how you define "second tier," r128. If you restrict first tier to Biden and Sanders, then yes, Buttigieg is second tier. If you accept Warren and Harris as first tier, then Buttigieg is right up there with them.

As to why Pete is on the second night, they pulled names out of the hat. Is that really so hard to understand?

r130, sure they did. ;)

What could you possibly gain out of rigging the first DNC debate running order, when there's no statistical data to show a certain arrangement is preferable (for a certain candidate)? The current composition of candidates is unique; it has never happened again and will never happen again, so how can you know who would fare better against whom?

I mean, honestly. There is such a thing as too much paranoia.

*never happened before, I mean

I think Biden is very glad Bernie is in the same debate. Can you imagine if he was surrounded by fresh, young faces like Pete and O'Rourke? Now , with the older Sanders next to him, he won't appear so much like the Grim Reaper.

Biden and Bernie are only 1 year apart in age.

Rooting for Inslee to make a good impression

Another one who's way too invested in this:

[quote]I don't think he can win, but his recent polling would suggest he is a serious candidate now r3.

[quote]IWho are they going to debate? They're DEMOCRATS (well most of them are), they can ALWAYS find something to debate each other about.

[quote]Ir26, and Mayor Pete will be out long before the nomination is decided.

[quote]Ir51, 1968 called and wants its joke back.

[quote]II concur! r58

[quote]Ir65, yes because that Fascist Pence was so much better.

[quote]Ir78, you poor deluded fool. Pete has NO CHANCE to win. He's way too young and he's gay and married. You really think most of the voters in this country will feel comfortable voting for a man AND HIS HUSBAND to live in their White House? Not gonna happen. Not in 2020.

[quote]IWhat is Pete doing on the second night, he's clearly second tier as well.

[quote]Ir130, sure they did. ;)

Biden and Sanders look their age. At least Biden is well put together. Warren looks amazing for 69. You can tell her age only because she gets out of breath when she speaks sometimes.

Everyone's going to look old next to Pete.

Night 1:

[bold]Texas Strong[/bold] !!! Beto is the luckiest motherfucker in the whole draw. He will let Warren have her time but the stage is full of second and third tier candidates that it gives him ample time to throw in a viral moment or two. Enough to keep him cruise him for the Summer.

Castro (TX) and Klobuchar (MON) were just thrown a life line. [bold]Everybody wins in group 1[/bold].

Night 2: The group of Death

Poor Pete, he was looking to have his moment but there is no way he'll have the time Biden.Bernie, Harris, and Gillibrand cockfighting each other like rabid dogs. This is just a bad draw for everyone involved except Harris and Gillibrand that would want to make a good soundbites to get some hot ink.

If Harris and Gillibrand get into a hair-pulling catfight, ratings will skyrocket!

I don't know that I agree, R139. I think Pete's calm demeanor will be in full display on night two and in nice contrast to those candidates who feel compelled to raise their voice to deliver a message (there are quite a few selected for night two)

Considering that Pete is top 5, he's first tier. That's what they meant by 4 of the first tier are on the second night, r128. But you already knew that Bernbot.

Where is r139 from?

Amy is from Minnesota, not Montana.

[quote]Where is [R139] from?

R143, I'm from the daddy of all states bitch. Got a problem with that?

Obviously I meant Minnesota, but then again it's all one big giant ball of nothing up there. I can hardly be blamed.

#California #TheCenterof #TheUniverse

[quote] R48: Mayor Pete will be out long before the nomination is decided

Some of these candidates will stay in just to prove they’re qualified for the VP nomination. Pete would make a good VP for Biden.

[quote] R65: And I also agreed that Tim Kaine was the worst choice for VP whom Hillary could have picked, a massive turnoff. People could tolerate Hillary, but Tim Kaine as her successor --- NO NO NO NO!

They barely won Virginia. He probably won it for the ticket. That’s something.

Incidentally, Pete is from a Red state, and potentially could win the state for the ticket.

[quote] R128: What is Pete doing on the second night, he's clearly second tier as well.

He’s currently polling in about position 5, so not 2d tier at all.

R146, it's incorrect to say that Hillary & Kaine "barely won Virginia".

They won it by 5 points, which was actually a larger margin than Obama won it in 2012.

Yes, saying Hillary barely won Virginia is laughable. She won it by a nice percentage in an election she lost a lot of swing states. The blueness of Virginia was a sweet spot for Dems, they have converted the state.

Amy Klobuchar would make a good VP for Biden. Very impressive congressional record. Her secure voting right act got bipartisan support in the house and even the senate. The only one who is blocking it is McConnell and Trump.

Pete and Yang should not be in the same debate. They're young and impressive. But I hope they rip Bernie and Biden to shreds.

Pierre, who pulls his info out of his ass, it seems.

I will repeat this every day until 2020: Anyone/anything but Trump.

R153 adopts the same empty-headed decision-making processes as the Germans in 1932.

You don't make much sense, R154. Unless you mean to say that all Democratic candidates have Nazi tendencies.

[quote]adopts the same empty-headed decision-making processes as the Germans in 1932.

What a thoroughly idiotic assessment! 20 of these candidates are hardly a nationalist, white supremacist, pathological liar, fucktard like the one you voted for in 2016. So fuck you, Trumptard. Go spewing your idiotic lie in your mom's whorehouse.

Anyone/anything but Trump!

R156 Germans with your mindless stupidity voted in Hitler.

R157 - Communist and Hitler. Oh, dear. What a moron.

1933 Germany already happened in 2016 USA, and 2020 is the time to stop the Nazi Trump shit.

Take your psyche meds, your fat meds, your heart meds, your brain meds, your blood meds, your pain meds, and just sleep and never wake up, you obese stupid Trumptard.

Might Swalwell steal some of Pete's thunder?

No...

r160 I think I might have confused him with another candidate who served in the Marines, but I don't think that one qualified for the debates...

Klobuchar is boring as fuck.

Oh for God's sake will some of you stop whining because so and so didn't make the debate, the qualifications were set so low that Marianne Wilson met them, the qualifications were set well in advance, everyone had ample time to meet them. If a candidate waited until the last minute to get in and couldn't meet these low qualifications they are too stupid to run the country. PERIOD.

r162 I listened to Klobuchar on last week's Lovett or Leave It, which was my first ever contact with her. Had no idea she hails from my land; always did find her surname oddly familiar.

Anyway, she seems funny and goofy at times. Super smart but also... unpredictable, to the point that she threw Jon off his game several times. I guess that's a useful quality to have when you're interacting with world leaders - to keep them on their toes. It just makes me uneasy and nervous whenever I have to talk to people like that, to be honest.

And wasn't Obama kinda boring as well? I mean, let's be real.

I would call Klobuchar's demeanor "materteral." She was so calm and self-assured during the Kavanaugh hearing which was quite opposite to what her staffers have been leaking to the press. Yet if she is to be nominated, I will vote for her, no matter what.

I see no reason to support her unless she’s the actual nominee

R3, he met the requirements for the debates, which included a minimum amount of $$ raised and a minimum number of donors.

Actually, it was one or the other to qualify, but several candidates met both.

If anything, the requirements seem too low

R2, because it is early. All this talk of polls right now is claptrap. This debate allows the exposure of candidates meeting the requirements who might actually become more popular. It also allows those who are less popular or known now get the exposure that would help with the VP nomination later.

R118, are you a troll? Elizabeth Warren is doing very well among the public. She is a great campaigner, has solid ideas and actually knows how to get things done. Unlike Bernie, who should be pushing the clean-up broom at the end of the night.

R138, if Warren ever gets out of breath, it is because she runs everywhere. If either Sanders or Biden attempted to move at her base, they'd pass out.

R162, grow up. She's not trying out for hoochie dancer.

Hopefully, the ones who perform well in the debates get much-needed national exposure. When they drop out, they have a platform to launch campaigns for governorships or US senate.

I love this picture of Warren. Looks like old-timey presidential pictures. If she wins, this photo will win some awards.

Madam President, I hope.

[quote]Amy Klobuchar would make a good VP for Biden. Very impressive congressional record.

Klobuchar needs to stay in the Senate where she’s proven to be very effective at getting bills passed.

How could that Williamson woman have possibly qualified?? Nobody has ever heard of her. There’s no possible way she could be polling above zero.

She's polling at 1% in three polls, R178. It's such a low bar that she was able to make it.

Amy K is the dark horse.

[quote]Amy K is the dark horse.

I agree, I don't think she'll make it to the top but her numbers will go up once people get to know her and see that she's smart, knowledgeable, experienced and confident. There is also this killer instinct about her. which I really like.

SO exciting!! Someone will soar and someone will crash and burn. But who??????

I still think everyone will agree with each other, so there will be no fireworks. I predict boring.

Interesting observation from Nate Silver today on the dynamic between Warren and Sanders, and how it could impact polling support:

[quote]While Sanders supporters and Warren supporters are far from perfectly overlapping, if I were Bernie's campaign I'd nonetheless be concerned that if Warren passes me in the polls at some point, it could trigger a bandwagon effect that would be hard to come back from.

Nate Silver:

[quote]In other words, some voters who like both candidates (or even mildly prefer Warren) might stick with Bernie so long as he seems to have the clearer path to the nomination. But the moment she appears equally/more viable, they could jump to her instead.

The central question is - what happens when it's Biden and Warren and Biden wins the nomination? Will Liz campaign for JB or will she pull a Bernie spoiler type attitude?

She's known to stab democrats in the back. Remember when she claimed the primaries were rigged against Bernie.

How effective will she be pulling her base together to vote for Biden?

Neither Biden nor Warren will get the nomination so don’t worry about it.

Bernie was never a serious candidate.

He was a novelty candidate in 2016, who has no business running again.

R187, Whom do you think will get the nomination? Since Warren has growing Black support especially among women then why do you see her as having no chances?

Warren getting any advantages from claiming Native American heritage really bothers me. A former roommate in LA was at least 1/4 Native American. One look at her mother, and to realize that she didn't have any freckles despite having an Irish - German father, would make a DNA test unnecessary. Still she didn't live on a reservation nor participate in any tribal activities. Therefore she answered surveys identifying as White. The same with her fair skinned, blond hair, blue eyed sister.

[quote]Will Liz campaign for JB or will she pull a Bernie spoiler type attitude?

If it comes to that Warren will campaign for Biden. She puts country first, that much is clear.

She might think it’s wrong for the country to support a buffoon like Joe Biden.

She might think it's important to defeat a buffoon like tRump.

[quote]She might think it's important to defeat a buffoon like tRump.

True. Except for some Log Cabin fugtards like R191.

R190, see R191

[quote] She's known to stab democrats in the back. Remember when she claimed the primaries were rigged against Bernie.

When? Provide a link.

She could have ran in 2016 but bowed out when Hilary made it clear she was running. Warren was the new kid, had plenty of momentum then. She doesn't strike me as a stickler for purity politics and is not as uncompromising as Bernie and his gang.

[quote] R189: Warren getting any advantages from claiming Native American heritage really bothers me.

You should be unbothered, because she got no such advantages.

Oh please R 195, were you hibernating when Liz did this?

She'll put country before politics, R197. There is a greater enemy out there and it's the Orange POS in the WH. Whoever is the Dem Nominee will have my full support even if it's Bernie.

"Neither Biden nor Warren will get the nomination so don’t worry about it."

Who do you think will get the nomination then - Marianne Williamson? LOL.

Marianne Williamson might the dark horse who gets the nomination. Voters love an outsider who is completely unqualified (see Trump).

Wow, the trolls have just given up.

r199 Pete has better odds than any other candidate.

For those of you who are not following polls and other surveys, this might sound a little crazy but I am right. Pete has the highest favorability rating among all candidates by far, he is going to post the highest fundraising at the end of quarter 2. He is also polling at a very desirable position. Not at the very top so he can avoid all the negative press but not at the bottom to be considered irrelevant. He has been consistenly in top 4 with lack of black support beiing his only caveat. But then again, who are taking notes from polls can tell you that he is slowing and steadily winning that black vote too. Today's South Carolina's poll bares testimony to that fact.

Warren has many skeletons and questionable stances that will come out very soon. So she won't keep surging

R202, Warren has been vetted for 30+ years. Pete hasn't been vetted at all yet. Your points are moronic.

Pete would be perfect but it's the 'gay man' factor the GOP will hone in on. Plus he doesn't have the accomplishments and political experience as Warren has. Lots of churchgoers, including blacks, are homophobic.

[quote]Warren has many skeletons and questionable stances that will come out very soon. So she won't keep surging

Every candidate had to go though some backlash.

I thought backlash of Warren happened months ago (they weren't really any skeletons or questionable stances, anyway) and she rebounded and keeps surging.

Pete's rough patch is yet to come. That's unavoidable.

[quote]Pete would be perfect but it's the 'gay man' factor the GOP will hone in on.

It's difficult to know for sure how the gay issue will be play because it hasn't been tested yet in a nomination race or in a general election.

There was polling done earlier this year which said that a majority of Americans are now open to voting for a gay President for the first time, but of course that still has to be tested at the actual polling booth.

r205 r203 I understand that you guys aren't political junkies but here's the truth, Warren's native american claims is not she should be worried about as far as primary is concerned ( it will effect her in the GE) but she has many things that need to be answered and when she was pressed she often diverted them previously. 1) She and her surrogates are highly critical of any one who is accepting big dollar donations in the primary so much so that her surrogates are constantly attacking any candidate who is attending a fundraiser. But Warren on record said that she is going to accept PAC, big dollar and Lobbyist money in the general election if she is to win the primary. That will attract huge negative press and the progressives will not turn out for her. She attended big dollar fundraisers last year which Biden is attending now.

2) Her burn rate of campaign money is the highest among all candidates. She has employed a ridiculous 100 employees in IOWA alone. 100. At the rate she is going and according to the primary "standards" she set to herself, she won't make much. According to estimates in order to win the primary, one needs to spend close to 30 million in California alone

3) Her previous voting choices are yet to be questioned. For example her stance on Israel-palestine isn't progressive

4) Her favorability is not as bad as Sanders but she is disliked by a sizeable portion which means she has definite ceiling compared to someone like Harris and Buttigieg who have the highest favorability. See the latest CNN article about why Pete and Harris have the best shot at winning.

[quote]it will effect her in the GE

Not likely. The only people bothered by that weren't going to vote for her, anyway. It's over and done and everyone has moved on.

Here's the Quinnipiac poll from earlier this year on the gay President issue. 70% of voters say they are open to electing a gay president. (86% of Democrats & independents who lean Democratic.)

April 2, 2019

[quote]Almost 70 percent of Americans OK with gay presidential candidate, poll finds

[quote]This marks a big shift since 2006, when 53 percent said they'd be “very uncomfortable” or have “reservations” about a gay or lesbian candidate.

R207, Warren appears to have about 50 staffers in Iowa, not 100, with Cory Booker second at 42. Both are way ahead of the other campaigns. As for her burn rate, you're right, but check out this post from April. I wonder if that person still believes what he wrote.

Basically, Warren is betting big on Iowa. If she can come in a very close second or even, better, eke out a win, she's going to be strong in New Hampshire and her campaign will be re-energized. Booker is essentially making the same bet.

It's not the first time a candidate bets big on an early caucus or primary. Sometimes the bet pays off (Obama) and sometimes it doesn't.

[quote]That will attract huge negative press and the progressives will not turn out for her.

I'm sorry but this is just nonsensical. Right now, she's one of the two candidates attracting the most attention from progressives. They want her to win and they'll be fine with her getting the money to do so.

R203 R205 The young Turks investigation team has settled in South Bend to find some dirt on Pete for months now. The best thing they could come up with so far is about a black man's suicide which happened before Pete was mayor and apparently the man's mother requested Pete to open investigation because she thought it was not a suicide. Pete asked her to contact his office. Lol.

His career in politics is so short that if there is any dirt it must be recent and it would have come out quickly.

Warren and Booker betting big on Iowa.

[quote] But Warren on record said that she is going to accept PAC, big dollar and Lobbyist money in the general election if she is to win the primary. That will attract huge negative press and the progressives will not turn out for her

The Democratic candidate who will beat Trump MUST accept anything and everything--PAC and/or Big Dollar money. I'm sure the Purity Progressives will dislike it. but they need to open their eyes to the Reality. Trump and his Cohorts have amassed a HUUUGE campaign chest. There's only so much online grass movement can give.

And if they use that war chest to help the down-level races, it helps everyone.

Will Booker go through with a sham marriage?

R214 You are right but she set the purity test for herself. It'd highly hypocritical of her to accept that money then if she says it's immoral to accept such donations in the primary. Again, it will blow up huge very soon. Press will always not be positive.

[quote] The young Turks investigation team has settled in South Bend to find some dirt on Pete for months now.

They're getting pretty desperate as they see Bernie's numbers weakens, lol. They are trying to attack Pete where he's weakest which is the Black Vote but I don't see it working. Every week, they have something on him.

Bernie shot himself in the foot when he said at a Townhall that even terrorists and child molestors have the right to vote. But Pete said NO, they don't have a right until they serve their time which is what the majority of voters agree with. Then TYT made a video where they tried to rationalize Bernie's stupid answer. I hope Pete uses that against the old man.

R212, I meant more in the sense, "we build them up, we tear them down". It doesn't have to be anything specific, just the idea that there is a lot of positive attention on someone, but then the tide turns, just because.

R198, I hope Warren puts country over politics if Biden is the nominee but I wouldn't bet on it. She's always been a bit of a Bernie cat and it's very suspicious that she is rising in the polls like that. She's never been really popular. Russia will try to split the democratic vote again and I am yet to be convinced Warren isn't Putin's Bernie II candidate.

Besides it's a tried and true tactic for sitting presidents to push for the candidate they think are easier to defeat. Remember Nixon - Muskie?

I hope I am wrong though, but it's good to be cautious.

R217, I *really* doubt your analysis. Using PAC money against fellow Democrats is one thing. Using it against Trump is something entirely different. Nobody is going to mind. Really.

[quote]I hope Warren puts country over politics if Biden is the nominee but I wouldn't bet on it.

I would.

[quote]and it's very suspicious that she is rising in the polls like that.

Oh, garbage. You're just grasping at straws now. Get real.

Look, it's okay to have a preferred candidate:

[quote]r199 Pete has better odds than any other candidate.

But to try to tear down another candidate on the basis of, really, nothing at all, does not serve you well:

[quote]Warren has many skeletons and questionable stances that will come out very soon. So she won't keep surging.

Just like I didn’t read all these comments I’m not going to waste my time watching 20 people debate something. Especially if all they do is bash Trump.

We all know he’s crazy. Tell us what YOU are going to do as President.

I’ll wait until it gets down to two or three max.

r221 The reason for Warren's popularity now is that she is against "evil" big dollar money, that she is against big corporations and that she is taxing the wealthiest. She is not popular because she can beat Trump. Biden is popular because of that.

So to eschew the values which made you popular just to beat Trump will make her more unpopular. If she wins the primary it's because she stuck to those values, not because she was the best candidate to beat Trump

[quote] Using PAC money against fellow Democrats is one thing. Using it against Trump is something entirely different. Nobody is going to mind. Really.

Exactly. It's like Jon Snow in GOT who refused to accept help in Battle of the Bastards because....he HAS STANDARDS, LOL. But they ended up helping him anyway and he didn't lose. Now why would anyone NOT accept help against a larger more evil enemy??

[quote]The reason for Warren's popularity now is that she is against "evil" big dollar money

Not at all, which is why you can't defend your position on this. She's popular because "she's got a plan for this" and she's tirelessly campaigning everywhere, mostly to adoring crowds. Taking big money to defeat Trump, which is the top priority of pretty much every Democratic voter and a good percentage of the Independents, just isn't going to hurt.

R225, she would have no choice, as it is in the Party's best interest. She wouldn't be the one who would accept the PAC money, it would be the DNC to help her. It would be foolish not to accept it.

Why Warren is surging.

(Free clue: it has nothing at all to do with her decision on PAC money.)

Look, we get it: you like Buttigieg and you see Warren, quite correctly, as a threat. But instead of talking about "electability," which you simply cannot defend at this stage of the election, talk instead about why Buttigieg's policies are better, why he's smarter, why he would make a better President, why he would make a better campaigner.

There are a few of these candidates I would not vote for in the primaries but I will cheerfully vote for any of them in the general election. I have half a dozen that I'm watching closely, all of whom have shown that they are capable of winning. For now, I'm waiting for the debates and for the primary campaign to take better shape before I decide about "electability" or any such nonsense.

Part of me wants Booker to get so far that he has to get married. It will serve them both right.

This is why Booker won't win the Primary. Is he that desperate that he needs to get married? Why didn't he get married 5 or 10 years ago?

People are laughing at him.

People who bring up TV/movie references in a political discussion just lose all their credibility. It sounds stupid and quite shallow.

Cory Booker is this year's Charlie Crist.

I'd love to see a comparison of the specific policy positions of Elizabeth Warren & Mayor Pete. Or a summary of R229's linked article which I'm blocked from reading.

I can't get access to WP without paying so here's a Politico article on why she's moving past Bernie.

[quote] Warren began laying out her vision of “economic patriotism” earlier this month with a plan for a $2 trillion investment of federal funds over 10 years in green research, manufacturing and exporting. She touted several other plans during an MSNBC town hall last week, including protecting access to abortion, an anti-corruption policy to rein in lobbyists and more corporate accountability for major companies.

[quote] Warren has more than 50 staffers on the ground in Iowa, and more hires are expected to be announced over the weekend. She expects to have a similarly large presence in New Hampshire and at least 30 staffers each in South Carolina and Nevada, where Warren is working on bringing on Latino interns and setting up caucus trainings in Latino communities.

As stated before, Bernie has that baggage from 2016. He's my last choice as the Dem nominee.

I'm glad Warren is surging. If she can run her campaign well, that means she can run the country well. That was a positive trait that Obama showed over Hilary, he ran a tight and well-run campaign.

[quote] In the Economist/YouGov survey, Warren’s net favorability is slighter higher than Sanders’, -6 percent to -7 percent, but Sanders is tied with New York Mayor Bill de Blasio for the candidate whom likely Democratic voters would be most disappointed to see win the nomination.

[quote]Twenty-percent of respondents said it would disappoint them if Sanders or de Blasio won the Democratic nomination for president. Nineteen percent said the same of Biden. Only 9 percent said they would be disappointed if Warren won the nomination.

[quote]Twenty-percent of respondents said it would disappoint them if Sanders or de Blasio won the Democratic nomination for president. Nineteen percent said the same of Biden. Only 9 percent said they would be disappointed if Warren won the nomination.

This is very telling of where the Democrats stand. Warren is doing great. She's one of, if not the, least polarizing candidates in the field.

As Nate Silver pointed out yesterday (see R184 & R185), there's a danger for Bernie if Warren starts to overtake him in the polls.

Up until now a lot of progressive/liberal voters have been sticking with Bernie in the hope he can win, but if Warren shows she is viable, some of that Bernie support may go to her.

How many questions will be asked before the topic of reparations comes up?

Pete's problem may come when people realize that he's not just a gay man running for president, but that he's a MARRIED gay man running for president. A lot of straight people are ok with gay people in general as long as they think of us as sexless human beings, but with some straight people (not all) they can't quite get past the idea of two gay men in bed together or two women in bed together. It bothers them, and that's where the danger for Pete B. might arise.

I hate to say it, but some straights would have less of a problem with Pete if he were still gay, but single instead of married. Once they really think about the idea that he is married to another man they might have a problem with the image that that info presents to them. They might not turn out to be quite as liberal about the whole thing as they thought.

That's why we wouldn't be in the strongest position to take back the White House in 2020 should Pete B. be the nominee. And we have to be able to put our very best foot forward in order to take down that bastard in the White House next year.

I like to think that most of these candidates know they have no chance but are in it to raise their profiles and be stronger for the lesser races they might run for, such as Bulloch or Beto for Senator... etc. Mayor Pete 6 months ago was a small city mayor and now he's a national figure who could very possibly be president one day.

R242, Recall how Obama presented himself as the antithesis of the negative stereotypes of the Black man? So did Martin Luther King on the surface. Mayor Pete follows that trend but for gay men.

Way back when I briefly described him and Chasten to those who hadn't yet heard of him. All were rather surprised but impressed. DL might not like the fact that he's a "square" and goes to church weekly but voters will respond favorably.

Pete needs to run and win some smaller offices before he tries for president again, like Congressman or Senator.

Or even Governor.

Bullshit

R245 - like your dad Trump, Iwanker? He ran for the office of the Apprentice.

The meat of the Washington Post article posted in R229:

Warren may be successfully turning the act of having policy plans into a virtue in and of itself, one that stands apart from the substance of the plans. Democratic voters are drawn toward candidates they think have policy muscle to go along with charisma. And in Warren’s case, what’s in her plans may matter less for the support she gets than for the idea that she’s the candidate who has plans for everything. It means she’s serious, substantive, prepared and ambitious about change. Not coincidentally, these are all things President Trump is not.

There’s something else Warren has that wins respect from those who have covered lots of campaigns, and winds up producing better media coverage in subtle ways: A clear, coherent message of the kind most of the other candidates are lacking.

A successful presidential campaign message tells voters three things: What the problem with America is, what the solution is, and why the candidate is the right person to bring us from the first to the second. In Warren’s case, she argues that the system is distorted by the interests of the rich and powerful, and she wants to reorient it both politically and economically in the direction of everyone else. She’s the one to do it, she argues, because she understands what’s necessary and has already figured out how to go about it (see: the plans).

A coherent message not only persuades voters, it also gets you good reviews from journalists covering the race, whether they personally agree with it or not. That’s not only because they respect a skillfully designed campaign but because it creates a kind of narrative coherence to the candidates’ actions and voters’ responses to them, one that makes easier the difficult task of writing about the contest every day.

Who is giving Warren Wilhelm money?

The RNC?

Everyone in NYC hates the guy--liberals, centrists, conservatives.

The fact that he is running is such an exercise in hubris.

I thought r218 said "Bernie thinks even TOURISTS and child molesters should be able to vote".

I need more caffeine.

[quote]Recall how Obama presented himself as the antithesis of the negative stereotypes of the Black man? So did Martin Luther King on the surface.

"on the surface", R244?

The problem with Pete being gay is the meeting Head of States who represent countries that are still extremely homophobic.

R251, Martin Luther King, Jr wasn't the loyal, faithful family man much of the public saw on the surface. That's what I meant. Still admire his objectives.

[quote] The problem with Obama being black is the meeting Head of States who represent countries that are still extremely racist.

Same shit, different container R252

Biden made a fool of himself today at the Poor People's Campaign attacking Joy Reid. Every time they let Biden out in public - a trainwreck.

[quote]The problem with Pete being gay is the meeting Head of States who represent countries that are still extremely homophobic.

Who the fuck care when the US president is the most powerful man in the world. And no problem with Trump, the pussy grabber, two-timed divorcee, pathological adulterer and shameless fraudster, meeting with the Pope?

[quote]Warren may be successfully turning the act of having policy plans into a virtue in and of itself, one that stands apart from the substance of the plans.

I think this line in r248 is worth calling out. It echos what I hear on DL from Warren supporters: "but she has a plan for everything. " Never mind that her plans are unrealistic and have so many holes in them that will be pokedtat mercilessly if she wins the nomination. Just the fact that she has plans is enough to make some here orgasm.

[QUOTE]Biden made a fool of himself today at the Poor People's Campaign attacking Joy Reid. Every time they let Biden out in public - a trainwreck.

How did he attack Joy Reid?

R257, A candidate having a definite plan to improve America rather than Biden's claim of being the one to best beat Trump makes my ears perk up. Speaking of Biden, what's with supposedly re-branding "The Deplorables" with another despicable name? Sure way to get their votes, and those who feel any sympathy towards them.NOT.

R248, Thank you for summarizing the article.

Yup, r259, a definite plan with definite holes in it is a sure way to win the general election! Woo hoo!

TYT are going after Warren now calling her economic proposals 'wordplay'.

TYT’s 2016 election night meltdown was epic.

Well, they were the ones pushing for fat Donnie since their candidate for stomped in the primaries.

[quote]TYT are going after Warren now calling her economic proposals 'wordplay'.

Why should anyone listen to them?

R258 Biden went over the Joy, got in her face, wagging his finger at her and explaining how Republicans will do whatever Ole Joe wants. Sure. He's senile.

Yeah, Joe is useless.

It should be some combination of Warren, Bullock, Kamala, Amy K or someone else. Not Bernie or Biden.

[quote]Why should anyone listen to them?

I knew Beto was an idiot when he did interviews at TYT, kissing Cenk's fat arse.

The fauxgressives love media outlets like intercept, TYT, salon, common dreams ... and just the Bernie faugressives alone are responsible for Trump winning in PA, MI, WI.

What about the David Pakman show? Who is he rooting for? Elizabeth Warren?

Why does Hickenlooper think he can win? There would have to be major scandals about the other 19 for him to have a hope.

R265, I think Biden's strategy is to siphon off voters from Trump. You have to remember that the republicans didn't want Trump, they only started to roll over when he won.

Who knows what old Joe is doing behind the scenes to persuade repubs to turn against Trump. It's not a bad strategy and this might actually be the only thing that works to get rid of Trump.

Esp when you think that Russia very well might be capable to successfully interfere again. There isn't one bill the democrats could get passed in the senate to ensure elections are safe.

Klobuchar has been working on her secure voting act for two years and she got bipartisan support in the house and with several senators, including Miss Lindsay who are willing to get the bill passes. The ones who are blocking it are Trump, McConnell and Barr.

Biden knows the fauxgressives won't vote for him, but he knows moderates, incl moderate repubs will and these are the people who actually will show up and vote.

R269, that's true.

Hickenlooper is at the bottom with only 1% support, and very few people outside of Colorado know who he is.

It would make much more sense for him to run for the Colorado Senate seat against Cory Gardner, one of the most vulnerable Republican Senators for 2020.

They asked Hickenlooper why he wasn't running for the Senate and he said 'look at all these Senators running for President, looks like they all want to escape'.

R270, On Conservative forums some of the 2016-Trump voters keep complaining how Trump's become less Libertarian as he alluded to in the last election and more and more entrenched in the old-boy system. Look at the Cabinet members who haven't quit as an example ie Bolton. They don't want to waste money on a war.

Now please tell me how these Moderate Republicans and Independents would vote for Biden in 2020 rather than Trump? Every little thing he does is ridiculed in the extreme. They're seeking another outsider who can actually fix the economy permanently. Oh and they hate the idea of hundreds of newcomers from other countries dumped in their cities and seeing their tax dollars spent on non-native Americans.

My brother-in-law is a lifelong libertarian but votes Republican rather than throwing out his vote. A retired business owner, computer geek, with lots of RE investments, he'd choose the candidate who'd most be of financial benefit. I barely tolerate him but understand how he and others like him view elections.

[quote]Never mind that her plans are unrealistic and have so many holes in them that will be pokedtat [sic] mercilessly if she wins the nomination.

Not really, which is why none of you idiots have been able to successfully "poke" at them here. They stand up to scrutiny, unlike, for example, Trump's.

The Young Turks are extreme Bernie Bros, R261, so it's not exactly a surprise that they're going after Warren. They, and their offshoots, have a habit of going after Democrats.

R273, Texas almost turned blue in 2018, there is no reason to believe Biden doesn't want to tap into that same sentiment. Remember both Bushes didn't vote for Trump, W abstaining and HW even voting for Hillary.

[quote]On Conservative forums some of the 2016-Trump voters keep complaining how Trump's become less Libertarian as he alluded to in the last election and more and more entrenched in the old-boy system.

No, poo, they really don't, which is why you can't support this silly "analysis" any more than you can the rest of the drivel you spew here.

How did that bet that Republicans were going to gain House seats in 2016 work out for you?

R276, Interesting as Biden is seen as an establishment candidate as opposed to Warren, and yet the latter is the one rising in the polls at the former's expense. If Bernie dropped out would all of this supporters go to Warren?

Warren's rise is hurting both Biden and Sanders, so yes, some of Sanders' supporters would go to Warren if Sanders were to drop out.

[quote]If Bernie dropped out would all of this supporters go to Warren?

No 26% would vote for Trump if Bernie isn't going to be the nominee.

BernorBust; and you can bet that Bernie is going to keep on courting the Trump crowds, why else would he do a townhall at Faux News.

The diehard Bernie or Busters will never support anybody but Bernie. They're cultmembers. I guess when he dies, they'll commit mass suicide.

We can only hope r281.

I think Warren is going to get piled on during her debate. Other than O'Rourke all the other top names are in the other group (Biden, Sanders, Harris, Buttigeig). Booker is a big name but not polling well.

Actually, r274, it's people like you who can't answer a simple question: how is she going to pay for all her programs when her 2% wealth tax is tied up in court? You are aware that her tax proposal may be ruled unconstitutional, right? And you do know why, right?

Just like breaking up companies... the last time a company was to be broken up was Microsoft and 21 years of court challenges and it remains whole. Surely you can explain how she plans on breaking up Amazon, r274.

R284, your supposition that it will be ruled unconstitutional is pulled right out of your ass as much as anything proposed by any political candidate. All we have to do is reinstate the 90%, 75%, etc. tax brackets and eliminate the cap on Social Security contributions to fix the economic disasters created by the Repug party over the last 50 years. Now, go crawl back up Bernie's or Biden's ass.

So then you have no idea why, r285. It's not a supposition and it's a given that it will be tied up in the courts at the very least But sure, go on pretending there aren't gaping holes in her plans.

Oh, and r285, given that Billionaires get compensated with things like stock options... That % tax bracket will do jack shit. You also might want to look into the history of taxes in this country. More money was collected after JFK cut taxes so a higher marginal tax rate doesn't necessarily mean what you think it will.

Sorry, R287, can't hear you due to the echo from the asshole you're currently residing in...but, really, keep trying to sell your bullshit excuses.

Just I thought, r288, you have nothing.

Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

Some reporter noted on twitter the really tall guys (Beto, Booker, De Blasio, Inslee) are all on the first night. The short guys (Pete, Bennet, Bernie) are on the second night.

r290 bernie is 6

Bernie is actually 6', believe or not. Oh, and for some reason I thought Andrew Yang is reasonably tall. He's 5'7". I hope he stands next to Pete, to make him (at 5'9") look taller. I want Pete to shine in every way.

R289, you have piles of speculative bullshit. We know you are a Bernie or Biden supporter. Which one is it? The one without even one plan to pay for anything he's promised or the one who just says "Remember Obama! I stood next to him!" as his entire platform?

If Castro, Booker, and O'Rourke are going to make a move, it is now or never. I imagine Warren will be targeted by everyone in her group.

Group 2 is more tricky because you practically have 4 of the top 5, plus Gillibrand that will try to muscle her way into the conversation.

You can be certain that there will be another hit piece or two on Warren in Slate or Salon commissioned by someone's attack dog soon.

PS. And 6 feet 4 years ago, may have shrunk to 5'8" now.

[quote]They asked Hickenlooper why he wasn't running for the Senate and he said 'look at all these Senators running for President, looks like they all want to escape'.

No, they didn't want to escape. They just want some adulation and attention.

Yeah, a bit of a foolish comment on Hickenlooper's part.

I hope he will come to his senses and run & win the Colorado Senate seat. Dems need that seat to win back the Senate.

R273 then he should be voting Democrat. Republicans have never had a balanced budget or budget surplus. Republicans have on given us Depressions and Recessions since Hoover.

I was just looking at a Bernie supporter's twitter, and he was attacking Warren.

And yet r293 you don't understand why both the tax and breaking up companies going to court are not speculative.

R300:

You dint seem to understand that it’s not sound policy to back off from what’s right because it’s ‘too hard’

There is surely be court battles over trust-busting moves, but you are pissing in the wind when it comes to adjusting tax rates.

R301, what are you going on about? Taxation is in the constitution and the 2% tax that Warren is proposing is in such a gray area that a court challenge right up to conservative SCOTUS is a given.

[quote]it's people like you who can't answer a simple question: how is she going to pay for all her programs when her 2% wealth tax is tied up in court?

That's ridiculously easy to answer. She replaces it with a capital gains tax increase and reverting the Republican tax package. Next?

[quote]You are aware that her tax proposal may be ruled unconstitutional, right? And you do know why, right?

Yes to both, thanks, just as I'm aware that her tax proposal should be ruled constitutional and I know why that is, too. If that's all you have, you might as well throw in the towel right now because you have no idea what you're talking about.

[quote]go on pretending there aren't gaping holes in her plans.

There aren't, of course, which is why you're resorting to childish insults and pathetic attacks.

[quote]Oh, and [R285], given that Billionaires get compensated with things like stock options... That % tax bracket will do jack shit.

Which is why you go after the capital gains. Duh.

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself with your ignorance.

Except none of that is what she's campaigning on, r303. Nice try though.

Oh, and r304, capital gai s won't do shit for deferred revenue and corporations. You do realize that people for corporations to take compensation, right?

Um, R305, she's not "campaigning" on any of those things because she has the wealth tax. If that is overturned, a long shot, she has multiple fallback options. Those "holes" you are envisioning mostly exist solely in your own head.

[quote]Oh, and R304, capital gai s won't do shit for deferred revenue and corporations.

*sigh* So? That's why you reverse the Trump tax plan and close a few loopholes. That takes care of corporations.

[quote]You do realize that people for corporations to take compensation, right?

You do realize that you're totally incoherent, right?

Gangway for miracles, possums!

We're certainly looking at Biden for the nomination, but this is *very early days*. He's going to play it safe because he has a track record of running his mouth. He's the king of malapropisms, but fortunately, anything he can do - Trump will do worse. Thank God for twitter.

Meanwhile, Biden's team is doing VP calculus. Texas is in play, and nobody saw that coming. That was a 10 point spread in a good year. There's a possibility Biden would put O'Rourke on just to carry Texas and kneecap the republicans in the Senate. Cornyn is already running for re-election and the usual gaggle on the democratic side are likely not exciting, except for MJ Hegar. She lost her last run for office by 3 points. A boost with a native son running could very well swamp all the races and tilt Texas blue for the first time since 1988.

This isn't about "feel good" politics. It's about who lifts the candidate where he or she is weakest. Two months ago, Beto would not have been on my list. Today he is. But, give it three months and Mayor Pete could be. Nobody knows for sure until the convention.

[quote]tilt Texas blue for the first time since 1988.

Carter was the last Democrat to carry Texas in 1976.

R310 Was I that unartful? I was expressing the rising tides sentiment for election management. 1988 was the last year Democrats held the majority of offices in Texas, including the senate. In the republican sweep of 1994 - Republicans took over Texas. In a rising tide, when a state is this close to flipping, a viable candidate can help all other statewide candidates tip the table from one party to the other.

That would help the Democratic Party in the Senate, if there are viable candidates running who are getting support from the national party early on. Otherwise, Texas will stay red. Beto's value would be the 38 electoral college votes - and that's pretty huge as Texas is WTA based on the popular vote, despite what happened in 2016.

Stage placements released!

Gonna be fun seeing Warren and O'Rourke next to each other

as well as

Buttigieg-Biden-Sanders-Harris placement

The good news for Biden in Florida is that he has a huge lead in the Democratic Primary.

As Harry Enten said today, as long as Biden gets through Iowa & New Hampshire, he could wrap up the Dem nomination in Florida:

R303 Robert is a snoozefest candidate. Terrible. Texas will not be in play. Biden will choose a black women if he wins it. So will Mayor Pete.

Mayor Pete will never be the nominee r314, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Fox News and Quinnipiac numbers for Biden vs. Trump:

Another thread about American politics where there are no more than about 3-4 posters who are actually eligible to vote in 2020

I think it's going to be more important that it be someone who connects to the Latino community. It's demographics and there's a 5 point spread between what's counted as the Hispanic community versus the African American community.

Tipping the election from 2016, that means tipping Texas (39% Hispanic), Pennsylvania(7%), and Wisconsin(6.7%) The African American population of Texas is about 13%, 11.5% for Pennsylvania and 6% for Wisconsin. All three states are WTA. You can look at this and think "But Pennsylvania has a much higher African American population!". That's true, but it has a historically poor voter turnout rate - adjusted, it has less than 40% of the eligible voters participate, and with a Pearsons .84 correlation, the highest the density of African Americans per ward, the lower the voter participation.

The podium lineups for the Democratic debates have been released.

On the first night, Elizabeth Warren and Beto O’Rourke will be center stage:

And on the second night, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders will be center stage:

R320 Oh, my!

Why is Bernie in the middle? Is he the new Julianne Moore?

I hope Beto takes Warren down on the travesty that is Medicare for All and her plan to pay off all the school debts of millionaires' kids. Somebody needs to bring her back down to Earth. She's gone nuts trying to turn herself into Bernadette which means she can't possibly win independents, moderate Republicans we need to beat Trump. All her extravagant promises are supposed to be paid for by the same sum of money. Her math does not add up nor could any of the things she's proposing get through Congress. She just wants to win the Democratic nomination and doesn't give a shit if she ensures another 4 years of Trump.

They will all look short next to "Beto."

Love people who bitch about healthcare for all but don't mind spending billions on a wall

18 of those 20 would make a vastly superior President than Trump, so I hope whichever one of those 18 wins, you all get your asses out to campaign, canvas, call, donate, and vote for them.

R189, wake up and read. She was told she had Native American heritage like many Americans are told they have a certain heritage. Then they get genetic testing done and find out it was a mistake. Warren never benefited professionally from this. Native Americans asked about this simply don't care. If you don't like her ideas or plans, fine. Don't support her. But this is a very poor excuse by anyone to try to claim she should not be running. It is a Republican idiot meme on Twitter that I see from time to time. It really has gone by the wayside.

R207, why don't you send that claptrap to Maggie Haberman? Because there are no facts and no evidence, so it is a cinch to wind up in one of her articles.

Barack Obama raised much of his election funds through small donations during the primaries, but when it came to the general campaign, he took large donations. That is because he was running against Republican candidates who had no problem taking them. You must have a level playing field. During the primary season, letting small donors decide who they favor and using the primary system. it is a level playing field. Any dem who becomes the nominee is smart to do this as long as we have Citizens United in effect.

R323, her math adds up just fine and has for years. You are just misinterpreting what she has said and written.

R329 It's not up to us to perform interpretive dance for her. She has to be plain spoken, clear and lay out her ideas. So far, she hasn't done well. Her one big idea was the Consumer Protection Bureau. Trump figured out how to end run it and shut it down in his first month.

So, her big idea wasn't that well structured for someone who's a professor of law and got played by fat con man from NYC.

To the contrary, R330, she's done quite well, which is one of the reasons her poll numbers have been rising. No "interpretive dance" is needed, as everyone who has seen her speak can attest to.

Your single "example" is hilariously inept, for reasons that don't even need an explanation. You're going to have to up your game.

Oh please, do tell us, R331 What are her big accomplishments in office? What is she going to run on?

I'll credit she's done more than Bernie who's accomplished nothing. She was the primary sponsor on a total of 7 bills - last year. Of those 7, 4 were commemorative bills: naming buildings after dead people. Two others were about control over payments for veteran's education based on qualifications of the institution. In short, many of the cybersecurity bootcamp schools where there's a critical skills shortage no longer qualify for reimbursement.

It's not exactly stirring stuff, unless you want to talk about her Over the Counter Hearing Aids Bill?

I wanted Pete to stand next to Biden (always good to be next to the frontrunner) and Andrew Yang (because he's shorter than Pete). Worked out.

r328 Except Warren wasn't playing on a level playing field which throws your logic out of the window. She transferred 10 million dollars of funds of her senate campaign to presidential campaign. She entered the race by recruiting 100s of employees. People who didn't have funds or name recognition like Buttigieg and Yang had to start from scratch. And guess what, of the 10 million Warren transferred from her senate account, many of those donations came from PACs, big dollar donors and lobbyists.

Warren and her supports may want to play on a level playing field but she certainly isn't practicing that. Neither in Primary nor in GE.

Nobody lucked out more than Biden by being next to Bernie. Can you imagine if he had all young bucks next to him? Visually, I wonder how Warren will be perceived if she is surrounded by youth. Maybe The Old Maid or The Prissy School Marm? There is absolutely nothing sexual about Elizabeth Warren.

[quote]Oh please, do tell us, R331 What are her big accomplishments in office? What is she going to run on?

They're on her website, moron. You really aren't impressing anyone here with these little dances you're performing.

And I love how you're pretending that the CFPB wasn't a major win for Warren.

[quote]There is absolutely nothing sexual about Elizabeth Warren.

Is there anything sexual about Trump? Why even bring that up?

R334, who are you carrying water for? Every senator or representative in the race can transfer funds to this race. That would include Booker, Klobuchar, Sanders, Gillibrand, Harris, etc. How is she different? And why are you going after her?

Anyone who thinks he can go from mayor to president and can't even win a statewide race is either fooling himself or his donors.

Look, Warren's Momma may have told her she had native blood (though she didn't) but her Momma didn't tell her to fill out her Texas Bar Registration card claiming her race as "American Indian" - you can be sure there's more shit like this and if she got the nomination you can be sure the GOP already has it all under lock and key.

R284, CNBC just did a poll on Warren's wealth tax. 60% of multimillionaires support it.

New York Governor Mario Cuomo, like most of the electorate, has no use for Bill deBlasio. The gov is backing Biden.

That's what amusing about these trolls, R337. They keep bringing up the most bizarre shit. "There is absolutely nothing sexual about Elizabeth Warren?" Seriously? WTF?

"It's not up to us to perform interpretive dance for her?" This is supposed to a criticism of Warren? The Professor who has been widely praised for her ability to explain her policies in simple terms that everyone can understand?

"Trump figured out how to end run it and shut it down in his first month." This is hilariously stupid. Trump hasn't "shut it down" and of course a federal agency is affected by the person we elect as President. It's as silly as pretending that "Trump figured out how to end run the EPA and shut it down in his first month." The criticism is so mindbogglingly inept that you just have to shake your head and hope the idiot gets help.

Her decision to accept money in the general election is going to "blow up huge very soon?" Really?

Good lord, we're being trolled by morons.

Not surprised, R261. They sit and talk politics in bars and thinks that gives them a Ph.D. in economics or LLM in commercial law or tax. Sadly, people who don't know any better buy that shit.

[quote]you can be sure there's more shit like this

Actually, we can be pretty sure there isn't, as this topic has been investigated exhaustively. People have already made up their minds and it's just not going to affect the election or the primary any more than it already is.

r338 if you want to talk about level playing field then every one should start with zero money. No one should have a built in advantage because they are senators. And if you want to take moral high ground then how can you use the money you collected from big donors and lobbyists for your campaign and then pretend that you are not collecting money from big donors. What hypocritical nonsense is that ?

r338 you ask, how is she different ? Because those other senators are not preaching like Warren and her supporters do. They are vilifying other candidates who are accepting money from big donors.

R339, why are freepers like you so concerned about Warren's background but not concerned at all about all the lies Trump tells?

R338, he's carrying water for Pete, as his other posts make clear. His posts on Warren are absolutely nonsensical. See, for example, R345 and R346, neither of which make any sense at all. Notice how he's randomly tossing out shit and not backing up a single thing he's writing? It's all bullshit.

R336 I'm not interested in her claptrap and posturing. You don't know her record, do you? Can't go look at the Congressional Record - just blindly following what she asserts is true, the same way Trump's followers believe him.

Oh, well done sweetie.

r348 What is there to backup ? The fact that Warren transferred millions from her senate campaign fund to her presidential campaign account ? The fact that she accepted big dollar donations for her senate campaign ? Tell me if you want me to show you proof.

LOL... Oh, you poor thing. Is that really the best you could come up with? That's just pathetic.

R351 was aimed at R349, natch, although it could just as easily have been aimed at R350.

R350, what is there to back up is your silly assertions about how this is going to "blow up huge" and that anyone at all gives a shit.

You can't, of course, so you'll keep playing these silly games.

This anti-Warren troll is on other threads doing the same shit. As whiny and stupid as the BernBros of yore.

Alright, Beto is center stage. Clearly the DNC thinks of Warren and Beto as the stars of night first.

Uh, R354...duh.

Apparently, R354 neglected to read just how the candidate positioning was determined. It has nothing to do with what the DNC "thinks."

I wonder who the surprise candidate nobody had been paying attention to and who stands out will be. I suspect Michael Bennet on the second night. He's pushy and aggressive. Don't really see anybody on the first night who would be - maybe Tim Ryan but he's so fucking annoying.

I've got a feeling Yang will make an absolute nuisance of himself.

I love that in the first debate, all the white males except Beto are in the debate stage hinterlands. It would be the exact opposite in a Repug debate, if there were any candidates other than white (or orange) males, of course.

The distribution between debate nights was picked at random, but the stage positions were based on polls. That's why Biden and Sanders are in the middle (as Warren is on the first night).

Uh, yeah, R354. It's because the first night is JV night with Warren as their babysitter. She definitely pulled the short straw there.

R360, I think it's the exact opposite. She can shine, and will. I think she, Beto, and Klobuchar will be the only ones to even score any points and I think Beto is going to look amateurish and out of his league in comparison to both of them. (What. Is with. His. Speaking style?) Plus, the ratings are going to be higher the first night. She'll stand out and a lot more people will see her. Exactly what she needs to keep her surge going.

The second night is going to be a bunch of people yelling over each other. And, with Biden and Bernie front-and-center, it looks really, really old.

Warren isn't my first choice, but I would be just fine supporting her and voting for her in the general if she wins the Primary.

Same for Castro and Buttigieg and Klobuchar.

Kamala Harris is my first choice, for a great many reasons.

There are only two candidates up on those stages that I could never support or vote for: Bernie and Tulsi.

If Biden ends up the Nominee, I'll certainly vote for him, but I'm really hoping he's not the Nominee.

R361 Beto debated Ted Cruz twice and Cruz (as his nemesis and former Princeton debate partner Austan Goolsbee pointed out) is a total asshole and a superb debater. Beto more than held his own and even got in some major zingers. Beto thinks fast on his feet. None of the others have had to face off against a debater of Cruz's calibre.

I didn't watch those debates, R363, but I heard Beto was pretty out of his league. It could be because Cruz (the piece of shit that he is) is an excellent debater.

I'm not sure that next week's debates will accomplish very much or shake things up at all. Each debate is 2 hours, but probably 30 to 40 minutes will be eaten up by commercials and the moderators talking. That leaves about 80 to 90 minutes of actual debating, or about 8 to 9 minutes per candidate -- and those won't be 8 or 9 uninterrupted minutes, they'll be spread across lots of questions. It will be hard for any candidate to make much of an impression unless they do or say something outrageous (which was the strategy Trump used to win in the crowded GOP field in 2016). Ten candidates in a debate is too many.

[quote]but I heard Beto was pretty out of his league. It could be because Cruz (the piece of shit that he is) is an excellent debater.

You heard?? Maybe if you were watching Fox News.

Beto was praised for his terrific performances were he obliterated Cruz.

[quote]New York Governor Mario Cuomo

Mario Cuomo has been dead for several years. ; )

But yes, his son Andrew is now Governor of New York.

Beto/Cruz debate. At the end of one, the moderator asked them to say 'something nice' about the other. Beto was gracious, mentioning Cruz's alleged devotion to his daughters. Cruz's turn: he kept trashing Beto saying he was a socialist just like Bernie Sanders... bla-bla-bla. Beto's response to Cruz: "True to form".

Cruz criticized Beto for saying he was in favor of impeaching Trump. Cruz: "he would impeach our President and this country would have to endure 2 years of a partisan circus.." Beto: "you've got some nerve criticizing partisan circuses after your 6 years in the Senate." The audience went nuts despite the fact Cruz had tried to pack it with staffers.

[quote]The podium placements were based on each of the candidates' qualifying public polling through Wednesday, June 12. The placements started with top polling candidates beginning at the center positions, with lower polling contenders being placed closer to the edges of the stage. Candidates who were tied in the polls were ranked based on the overall number of qualifying polls.

r368 If he does that in democratic debates his polling will drop from current 1-2% to 0%.

R368, both of those comebacks are pretty lame. I saw some of the highlights of those debates and he was okay. Nothing spectacular. But, he has gotten so much worse. He is very uncomfortable when he's interviewed now. He fell down hard on his campaign kickoff as entitled coverboy and he hasn't recovered. He's gun shy and it's having an effect on his presentation. I think he's going to really disappoint in this debate.

Honestly, I hope he goes out spectacularly and goes home to run for the Senate seat he should be running for right now against Cornyn.

If Beto regains his 2018 form, he would steal the night away from Warren. His debates against Cruz were a thing of beauty.

At one of Beto's townhalls

Question: "Every time I hear Mayor Pete speak, out of his mouth comes gravitas. Do you have gravitas?"

LOL

R372, I just went and watched about 20 minutes of one of the debates and I stand by my earlier conclusion that he was okay but nothing spectacular. He was debating the epitome of disgusting evil smugness and assholery and still didn't clean the floor with him and that's coming from someone who agreed with almost everything he said in the debate. He's going to be going against other mostly likeable Democrats this time. I think he's going to come off looking either ineffectual or entitled.

Beto being introduced as "a blank slate waiting to be filled by our hopes and dreams " at one of his events in Iowa.

HILARIOUS

R373, it sounds like that question was asked by a DLer!

Very bitchy!

r375 r374 OMG those videos crazy as fuck. Poor Beto. Lmao

[quote]Question: "Every time I hear Mayor Pete speak, out of his mouth comes gravitas. Do you have gravitas?"

R373, was that a DLer asking that question? Why do I feel like it had a double meaning...

[quote]There is absolutely nothing sexual about Elizabeth Warren.

Should there be? She's 69.

[quote] She's [bold] 69. [/bold]

Sounds sexual to me.

Beto has 6 detailed policy plans. Pete has none.

If Beto decides to still run for the senate wouldn't that help whoever becomes the nominee to turn Texas blue?

I don't think he can pull off an 2018 campaign magic again though. He showed too much of his weird and off putting side when he started running for the big price.

I am hoping Amy Klobuchar raises her profile among the democratic candidates. She's a bit of a dark horse IMHO and a lot of people start being impressed by her once she starts talking. Very confident and clever woman. She gets an enormous amount of legislation passed. Whoever becomes Potus would be good advised to have her on his/her team.

I hope Biden and Kamala will eviscerate Bernie for the traitor he is.

[quote]Pete has none.

False.

I mean, I get you don't like the guy, but don't lie about him.

Seems there's a Pete Uber fan who goes around lying about Beto as well.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

"Too often the Democrats have been the party that stands for the right thing, but still cozies up to the forces that do the wrong thing, thinking that that's okay because once we get in power we will do the right thing, and then we naively think that that doesn't smell to people, that the putrid stench of that more complicated corruption will not be wafting into the nostrils of the average voter.

In other words, too many Democrats are half-truth tellers, ladies and gentlemen, and Donald Trump will eat the half-truth tellers alive. The real truth is how deeply corrupt our country has become. How we're no longer functioning as a government of the people by the people and for the people. We are a government of the multinational corporations [by] the multinational corporations and for the multinational corporations. We rejected "Of a few of the people, by a few of the people, and for a few of the people," we rejected that aristocratic nonsense in 1776 and it is time for us to repudiate that stuff again! "

YouGov/ Economist Poll June16-18

Biden 26% ( 0 change since last yougov poll)

Warren 14% ( -2 )

Bernie . 13% (+1)

Buttigieg . 9% (+1)

Harris 7% (+1)

Beto 4% ( - )

Suffolk University Poll ( rated B+ by Fivethirtyeight )

This is their first national poll this season.

Biden 30.13%

Sanders 15.32%

Warren 9.61%

Buttigieg . 9.35%

Harris 8.31%

Why is Booker doing so badly?

He isn't getting much press coverage.

R389 Booker gets ignored so the media can give saturation coverage to the Rhodes Scholar and small-town mayor Pete. Oh.. Booker's a Rhodes Scholar too, was a big city mayor, graduated from Yale Law and a Senator - but, let's face it, he's no Mayor Pete!

Booker isn't getting coverage because of Booker. Does anyone assume that Pete just got handed the attention he's getting? He is on EVERYTHING, rarely says no to an interview. Of course, he also impresses when he gets there. This wasn't Booker's or Beto's approach. Tough shit, they chose the wrong approach. Once you're languishing in the polls, the media loses interest. They could turn it around at the debates if they do really well.

Buttigieg clearly separated himself from the 5th position and is firmly at 4th in all the major polls above Kamala.

RCP Average: Biden: 32%

Sanders: 15.2%

Warren: 11.3%

Buttigieg: 7.3%

Harris: 7%

O'rourke: 3.7%

Booker: 2.3%

Nah, the MSM is trying to create a narrative and pick the candidates. The 'liberal' media gives gushing, fawning coverage to Pete, they avoid covering controversies in his past which only black twitter rails against, they don't report on the fact that he claims to hold progressive positions while running to fundraisers with Saudi connected billionaires. Now they're promoting Warren. Why? They obviously want a ticket with Warren and Pete on it. No black people will vote for them, no Latinos. Trump can call Warren Pocahontas for 6 solid months while more and more proof comes out she got her key jobs through claiming affirmative action. Pete and Pence can Bible thump and attack each other and homophobic flames will be fanned! Great ratings! And they can't beat Trump.

If anybody thinks the 'liberal' media wants Trump to lose, you're very naive. Their ratings are through the roof, they all belong to massive corporations which got massive tax cuts. All those GOP NeverTrumpers squatting on MSNBC and CNN (Bill Kristol, Donnie Deutch, Ana Navarro, Jennifer Rubin ad nauseam) now would be out of a job. They aren't Democrats, have never supported Democrats and have burned their bridges with Fox News.

Mayor Pete is the only respectable candidate, the rest are jokes.

Trump must be paying these losers to run.

I see the Pete fanboys are all over this thread like the other primary threads. DL is infested. Newsflash just because he's gay doesn't mean I'm obligated to support him.

R396, I think one of the reasons people admire Pete is because he's made an impact by having the courage to be openly-gay, whereas Booker appears to be a closet case who is bearding with Rosario Dawson.

Gotta love people like r394 who pretend to be liberal while reciting right wing talking points about affirmative action. Maybe you forgot that Trump and Dubya only got into ivy league schools because of their connections.

I don't know anyone who gives a shit about this Pete dude. From my neck of new York all people talk about is biden, Warren Booker and harris.

The Clinton's are funding these goofy no-chance losers so that Hillary can jump into the race and look like the only viable candidate.

HOWEVER: she cannot win. She will go for broke ( she bet one BILLION of her own money to run in 2016 ) this time in order to protect herself from going to prison, she thinks.

It all goes back to Uranium One, which she sold 20% of U.S. uranium to Russia. This is what is in her emails. Hillary made 150 million dollars in that illegal deal.

Poor Julian Assange has her emails, which is why he has been abused and locked away.

Gillibrand's ties to Nexium with her daughter Allison Mack singing like a canary will destroy what is left of the democratic party. Which was over taken by assholes when they killed JFK.

Jr. Could be coming back, praise the Lord.

R400 also wrote this bon mot ...

[quote]Mayor Pete is the only respectable candidate, the rest are jokes.

[quote]Trump must be paying these losers to run.

Who knew the Buttigiegs are as crazy as the BernorBusters.

[quote]former Senator Mike Gravel

I didn't know he was still alive, let alone in the running. He's 89 years old.

[quote]She's gone nuts trying to turn herself into Bernadette which means she can't possibly win independents, moderate Republicans we need to beat Trump. All her extravagant promises are supposed to be paid for by the same sum of money. Her math does not add up

So you've claimed over and over and over again, without once providing even one shred of data to back up any of your claims. Until you do, we'll keep laughing at your pathetic attempts here.

Wow ... R400 is genuinely nuts. It's rare to see someone so completely unhinged, so disconnected from reality. There's nothing you can say in response to that crazy outburst. All you can do is shake your head and hope he gets help. Soon.

I am as much a fan of Warren as some, but don't underestimate her opponents. They are all capable in one way or another and this will be their first real shot at publicity so expect everyone to up their debate game.

R388 He is a complete fucking nobody. He did nothing in Newark and nothing for New Jersey. In addition,he is a closeted phony and people can see through his little act.

r400 is Q garbage.

Mark down this date: June 19, 2019. The Democratic ticket will be Gillibrand / Booker. The ticket is as diverse as you can get, with 3 minorities represented.

No one cares about that loser ticket. Minorities, lol okay sjw.

Gillibrand is Nexium, with ties to Bronfman.

Prison is more likely.

r409, with the sjw comment maybe you should start posting at freerepublic instead of in a thread about Democratic candidates. I know you freepers want to pretend that Gillibrand and Hillary Clinton are heading to prison, but that's only happening in your head.

It's pure insanity (and racism and sexism) that Mayor Pete is polling above Kamala Harris. She's far more qualified and experienced and capable.

Is the media covering Kamala?

R410, don't bother. R409 also wrote this one at R400:

[quote]The Clinton's are funding these goofy no-chance losers so that Hillary can jump into the race and look like the only viable candidate.

[quote]HOWEVER: she cannot win. She will go for broke ( she bet one BILLION of her own money to run in 2016 ) this time in order to protect herself from going to prison, she thinks.

[quote]It all goes back to Uranium One, which she sold 20% of U.S. uranium to Russia. This is what is in her emails. Hillary made 150 million dollars in that illegal deal.

[quote]Poor Julian Assange has her emails, which is why he has been abused and locked away.

[quote]Gillibrand's ties to Nexium with her daughter Allison Mack singing like a canary will destroy what is left of the democratic party. Which was over taken by assholes when they killed JFK.

[quote]Jr. Could be coming back, praise the Lord.

There's nothing you can say to someone so deranged.

Yikes, R400 will be shooting up a pizza restaurant soon. WE need an FF, ignore, and report to FBI button.

Yeah, R399, that's why Booker is at about 2% in the polls, while Pete is at a 7-8% average. Maybe your neck of the woods isn't representative.

[quote]Mark down this date: June 19, 2019. The Democratic ticket will be Gillibrand / Booker.

I don't see Gillibrand winning the nomination.

She's at only 1% in the polls.

While candidates can ( & do) make gains during the debates and can pick up momentum in the early primaries, it's almost unheard of for someone to go from low single digits to winning the nomination. Historically, most candidates who win the nomination have started out in double digits.

R400 also wrote this:

— Pete and Beto together

[quote]Trump attended a military academy and worked construction as a teenager.

[quote]Trump has studied military strategy and is wholly respected by our service members.

[quote]Both Pete and Trump are honorable men.

[quote]If the democratic strategy is to attack Trump, who is the most keyed-in president regarding our military, then you will LOSE once again, in another spectacular fashion.

[quote]Both men deserve respect. So give it.

[quote]As an independent, my advise to the dems is to lose O'Rourke, who is floundering already.

[quote]I still think old hillary will jump in at the last minute.

— “Eight Women Accuse Hollywood Filmmaker Max Landis of Emotional and Sexual Abuse: ‘We’re Not People to Him’"

[quote]Allison Mack is thought to be Kristin Gillibrand's daughter, as Mack's father was a member of Nexium.Yes, the Gillibrand who is running for president, and is a good friend of Hillary Clinton.

[quote]The Clinton's have been a protection racket for Hollywood for decades. Ed Buck ( where is he, by the way) is a key player in this and he's a good 'singer' as well. Weinstein, Cosby, Don Simpson, Mack...all tied in with the Clinton's but HELLO, they are all circling the drain now, the jig is up, goodbye Hollywood limousine liberal assholes.

[quote]The CIA, NSA has all your dirty deeds in their files.

[quote]Pamela Anderson is the smartest woman in Hollywood. Who knew?!

I've been blocking the rabid anti Hillary crowds (surely all BernorBusters and Trumpers) left and right.

Hopefully Muriel banns these toxic asshats.

The three left standing will be Pete, Warren, Biden, and Bernie.

The rest exit stage left.

So one of those four will be sitting, R419?

Either R419 can't count, or they acknowledge that Bernie is too fucking old to stand and isn't actually a Democrat.

[quote] I don't see Gillibrand winning the nomination.

Don't be so quick to count out Gillibrand. She's extremely popular in New York.

R420 yes, Biden. His lead will vanish post debate. But he's got corporate money so he'll survive.

R420 , I love you.

R421 and Bernie is a carpetbagger Democrat.

Pete will be the odd man out. Pete hasn't a prayer of getting the nomination much less winning the nomination.

We are not going to hand over the reins of power to a man who isn't even 40 years old yet. It's not happening.

I mean winning the election above ^

Gillibrand is hated by a good many Democrats for what she did to Al Franken; her candidacy is going NOWHERE.

Yeah Gillibrand's candidacy is literally a joke at this point, can't believe we have a Gillibrand troll. Guess it is about time she started paying some flacks.

There's no way on God's green earth that Gillibrand will get to the second debates. Unless the above poster wants to keep continuously changing their identity so they can donate to get her over the threshold. Not happening. In what universe is she ever polling at 2%, anyway?

R430, the second debate has the same rules as the first. It's the third debate where the threshold is raised. I expect almost all of the candidates will still be viable for the second debate.

Love: It's real... It works... Go for it!

[quote]Don't be so quick to count out Gillibrand. She's extremely popular in New York.

Yes, it's true that Gillibrand is popular in New York. She was able to take over from Hillary and win her seat by even larger margins than Hillary.

However, Gillibrand has very little support *outside* New York. That's the problem.

Gillibrand is the same type of candidate as Lindsey Graham was in 2016.

Popular in their own state, but can’t get above 1% in national polls.

Hey, people. Gillibrand is from the state of NEW YORK. This isn't Bumfuck, Iowa. It's the second most important state in Democratic politics. Discount Gillibrand at your own risk.

Gillibrand is getting no institutional support from the state of NEW YORK.

The big money NY donors are not lining up to support her, and NY democrats are not lining up to endorse her.

No way Pete makes it to the second debate after these last few days.

It shouldn't hurt him since he never received support from African-Americans and is easily top 5 without them.

r434, she isn't even popular in NY. My mother still lives there and she isn't her favorite.

[quote]Hey, people. Gillibrand is from the state of NEW YORK. This isn't Bumfuck, Iowa. It's the second most important state in Democratic politics. Discount Gillibrand at your own risk.

R435, the New York Democratic Primary isn't until April 28. Long after most of the other Democratic primaries have taken place.

Gillibrand isn't well liked in NY. The reason she won by a higher margin than HRC is 1) population increase and 2) she hasn't run against anyone with recognition. Saying she's well liked in NY is like saying Andrew Cuomo is well liked.

R441, totally off topic, but isn't Andrew Cuomo the most repulsive looking human being ever?

R437 The second debate has the same threshold as the first, so he’ll make it. He already has almost no support among black voters, so it probably won’t hurt his numbers that bad.

Yes, NY tends to have ugly politicians. De Blasio looks like Lurch and may actually be even less well liked than Gillibrand.

"No way Pete makes it to the second debate after these last few days."

What last few days? Stop making shit up.

R445, way to write your ignorance down for all to see.

What's particularly disturbing about the IN shooting is the victim was a car thief. Not saying by any means that he deserved to die but he's certainly not comparable to the 100% innocent Black man shot in his own home by the cop in TX who mistakenly broke into the wrong place.

Will those who've already paid off their student loan debt want refunds? Where will Sanders find the money? How will he get it through the Senate?

He won't, he is just promising impossible things again so that he can say. 'See I am the only candidate who is looking out for young people, the only real progressive. All the other democratic candidates are not progressives, they are just as bad as republicans.'

He is doing his best to be a spoiler again.

His culty followers will protest vote for Trump if Bernie won't be the nominee. Sanders is absolutely toxic!

R449, Thank you, makes sense. See that another poster has made an entire thread on this topic.

Julian Castro is 5'4". He has to stand on the stage between De Blasio (6'5") and Cory Booker (6'3").

r451, they wouldn't do that? Is it going to be in alphabetical order?

If Pete and Casto were the ticket they could run around the country shaking their tiny fists.

r438, You are an imbecile. Even if Pete can some how do decently without much African American support, if he some how becomes the Democratic nominee, he won't have a prayer of winning the election without African American support.

Well, it would be a nice change from talking about how evil white women are for the last 3 years.

"way to write your ignorance down for all to see."

The freepers and BernieBros attacking Pete are the ignorant ones.

The media has officially dropped Pete. Now they're trying to promote Castro. Castro's painfully dull. This is going to be an uphill struggle.

[quote]Is it going to be in alphabetical order?

R452, the DNC has arranged the podium order according to polling placement:

[quote]The podium placements were based on each of the candidates' qualifying public polling through Wednesday, June 12. The placements started with top polling candidates beginning at the center positions, with lower polling contenders being placed closer to the edges of the stage. Candidates who were tied in the polls were ranked based on the overall number of qualifying polls.

Pete will come back. He is ambitious and the rest are not interesting.

Observation from Harry Enten today on how Black voters view Biden vs. Buttigieg:

[quote]As Buttigieg/Biden face media scrutiny on issues revolving around race, 1 thing I think (?) should be noted is black voters "know" Biden. Over 90% of black Dem primary voters could form an opinion of Biden in April/May CNN polls combined. Just 42% said they could of Buttigieg.

Harry Enten:

[quote]I would think (?) it'd be much harder to change voter opinions about someone voters know than someone who more than half of black voters cannot form an opinion of.

Mayor Pete made a huge mistake. Knowing Black voter support would be necessary to win and realizing that he had had a controversial incident in South Bend which still left a bad taste in some people's mouths, he should have pro-actively reached out to the poorest elements of IN Black community specifically with a program for solid economic improvement.

Also he should have done something to improve relations with South Bend's LE and local Blacks knowing questionable shootings had become a national trend. I suggested as such early after his initial announcement and was sharply told that everything re the above is covered in his book. Horrible response IMHO.

Mayor Pete is still my favorite candidate however.There's never will be a perfect candidate.

........

Why did Pete think he could win the Democratic nomination when he had such historically bad relations with the African American community in South Bend? Sunny Hostin was bitching on The View today about how she has a lot of friends in South Bend and none of them like Pete.

South Bend's got a population of 100,000. Pete only got 8,515 votes to be elected mayor so he's not exactly King of the World.

Sunny has friends in South Bend? Hardly. The Democrats have an historically bad relations with white voters and white men especially. At least Pete can attract the white vote. And blacks don’t vote anyway. No loss.

25% of 2016 Democratic primary voters were black, R465. Can you explain how he’s going to win the nomination without those voters?

[quote]And blacks don’t vote anyway.

Black women literally prevented a racist pedophile in Alabama.

Black women also greatly helped the Democrats take back the House in 2018.

r465, is a bigoted idiot.

I still want Kamala Harris to be the nominee. A real fuck you to Trump when she wins over him in a landslide.

She might be, R489

I am fine with Harris, Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

[quote]25% of 2016 Democratic primary voters were black, [R465]. Can you explain how he’s going to win the nomination without those voters?

Mathematically speaking he could win without them as long as he is top 3 in some key states like Texas, California, Nevada, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Virginia, NY, Michigan, North Carolina, and Florida.

We would have to know the breakdown of the black vote outside of the Southeast to make a better assessment. The majority of the black vote remains in the Southeast, and the black vote outside of the Southeast is around 8-12%, correct me if I am wrong.

So realistically he could win it because he is doing well in white majority states, the Southwest is the hill where he'll die or survive. 5 states from the Southwest have primaries in the first 5 stops, so Pete's fate will be known rather quick.

R472, How is Mayor Pete doing with non-White, non-Black, Democratic voters?

R473 the most recent Democratic Primary Poll of Texas (Texas has the US' largest African American and Hispanic populations) showed Pete has no support from AAs and ranked 7th in the poll among Hispanics.

There is the little issue of the black voters still being more homophobic than other voting blocs that is not being discussed in relation to support for Buttigieg. The black community is getting better about it but they still have more issues with gay people than other Democratic groups.

And, before I get attacked for saying that the black community still has more of a problem with gay people than the other Democratic voting blocs, here are the numbers...

[quote]Support for allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally also has steadily risen across racial and ethnic groups. Six-in-ten or more whites (64%) and Hispanics (60%) say they favor allowing same-sex couples to be married legally. In 2007, just 38% of whites and 37% of Hispanics supported same-sex marriage. Although blacks remain less likely than whites and Hispanics to favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry, the share who favor gay marriage has also dramatically increased over the past decade: Today 51% of blacks support same-sex marriage; in 2007, just 26% did so.

I'm a white gay man and I don't support Pete because he doesn't have enough experience, he seems to be an arrogant and self-absorbed - the type who will surround himself with suck-ups to feed his ego rather than qualified people who will challenge him and make up for his lack of experience.

And if he can't deal with black community activists - he sure as hell can't deal with the GOP. He should run for Congress.

[quote]How is Mayor Pete doing with non-White, non-Black, Democratic voters?

With Hispanics Pete fluctuates between 3-6 depending on the state as of Late May- early June.

With Asian the polls are even more obscure. However, Hispanics have elected gay mayors in Texas and Hispanics and Asians have elected state officials throughout the Southwest. Pete actually has a good chance to rake in the votes if he courts those votes.

-California has the largest Hispanic population with 15 million .

-California has the largest Asian population with 5.8 million.

-Texas has the second largest Hispanic population with 11.3 million.

-Texas the largest African-American population with 3.4 million.

R477, you clearly know nothing about him. This is a guy who faced the music not once but twice with this shooting. He knew that the Reigina cunt from South Bend who is determined to destroy him was bringing "activits" whose job was to scream at him non-stop without listening but he didn't cancel the townhall. He surrounds himself with qualified people and is very self-aware.

You seem like a Bernie-bro.

[quote]the most recent Democratic Primary Poll of Texas (Texas has the US' largest African American and Hispanic populations) showed Pete has no support from AAs and ranked 7th in the poll among Hispanics.

Texas does not have the largest Hispanic population. They trail California by several millions. Also, California has the largest Hispanic/Latino voting eligible population.

Pete started Texas in 12th place with Hispanics and now he is 6th after visiting Hispanics in Texas just once. There is potential growth there with Asians and Hispanics.

For god sake, a gay was just elected Mayor in Del Rio,Texas which is 81% Hispanic. Gurl, if that flaming queen can win a mayoral race in Texas, Pete can surely finish top 3 in the Texan primaries !!! Pete is masc and a veteran, Latin papas will feel comfortable voting for him.

Let me repeat myself, if this queen can be a Mayor in Texas after the GOP pummeled the airways with these photos, Pete can definitely pull a hat trick in Texas.

Actually, I also don't think blacks would ignore Pete if he was top three after Super Tuesday or if he wins the nomination. Black women in particular know what is at steak.

stake*

Stick with 'at steak' - wow, you live in your dreams. Pete would be lucky to rank 6th in Texas though his poll numbers will fall after the South Bend incident.

Why do you have to be such a dream killer R483? He has as much of a chance in Texas as Warren and Bernie. Remember, he doesn't have to win Texas to get a good number of delegates. He only needs to place high enough to rake in delegates. A 3rd place in Texas, and especially California, is worth more than many wins in smaller states.

Booker never smiles. His campaign manager should tell him to smile more when he does speeches. He comes off as a hard ass.

Whoever wants to attract the black communities better get Bill and Hillary do some campaigning, both showed up for Aretha when Obama couldn't be bothered to attend her funeral. Bill wanted Barbara Jordan on the supreme court

R485, you must not have seen him throw his head back and laugh where he looks like Shrek. And he has way too many teeth when he does smile. It's probably best to keep a serious face.

New poll from Morning Consult out tonight has Warren gaining momentum:

R484 He hasn’t polled at the 15% that’s required to win delegates in any state in all of June. Also, his issues with black residents in South Bend will now be attached to him for the rest of the primaries — it’s part of his narrative now, to be brought up over and over again.

The blacks that were alive during MLK, vote. The rest don't.

Pete's ahead of Harris in that poll.

Yes, R491. Considering the troubles of the past week for Pete (& Biden) this is a good poll for both of them.

Warren gained 2 points, and Harris actually lost a point (although it's within the margin of error and may just be noise at this point).

Full report from Morning Consult:

Polls this early mean NOTHING.

PollerCoaster poll of IA,NH,SC

Biden 29%

Sanders 20%

Warren 19%

Buttigieg 14%

Harris 5%

O’Rourke 3%

Booker 3%

Stick a fork in Beto and Booker

"Booker never smiles."

This is the second pic that comes up on Google Image Search for "Cory Booker"

"Booker never smiles."

Eric Swallwell - smart, articulate and very handsome. He's not as swole and muscular as Booker. Booker is a muscular and huge bro.

Harris is polling really poorly.

[quote] Julian Castro is 5'4". He has to stand on the stage between De Blasio (6'5") and Cory Booker (6'3").

[quote] [R451], they wouldn't do that? Is it going to be in alphabetical order?

Here is the layout of each night of debates from left to right:

Wednesday, June 26

Bill de Blasio

Tim Ryan

Julian Castro

Cory Booker

Elizabeth Warren

Beto O'Rourke

Amy Klobuchar

Tulsi Gabbard

Jay Inslee

John Delaney

Thursday, June 27

Marianne Williamson

John Hickenlooper

Andrew Yang

Pete Buttigieg

Joe Biden

Bernie Sanders

Kamala Harris

Kirsten Gillibrand

Michael Bennet

Eric Swalwell

I am not sure what would be better but debates are a horrible way to select a President. Coming up with a good one liner, or being able to knock someone down with a pithy comment does not mean you will make a good President.

As we watch these debates I hope everyone will keep this in mind.

I forgot to link my source for the positioning of the candidates for the debates in R500

I think saying " we need a conversation about..." hurt Harris at the CNN town hall in April. That's pretty much all people took away from her performance that night. We know Harris can be outspoken and direct - we've seen her grill Republicans in the Senate - she needs to stop being timid when being interviewed.

Not only is Harris polling poorly, but the first two states on the primary schedule (Iowa and New Hampshire) don't work in her favor. If she doesn't finish within the top 3 in either state (which seems a very likely scenario), it's hard to see how she would gain any momentum to be the nominee.

I wouldn't hold Kamala off just yet. I think Biden will implode and she will rise as the centrist favorite as a result of that.

His aides can barely get a handle on him already and he dismisses all advice from young people trying to guide his campaign. Biden's a disaster in waiting if you ask me

R505 Centrists have buttigieg to go to. Iowa and NH are extremely white states. Hard to see Harris doing better than charismatic Buttigieg

[quote]Coming up with a good one liner, or being able to knock someone down with a pithy comment does not mean you will make a good President.

True unfortunately, the reason why highly qualified candidates like Amy Klobuchar can't get any traction.

[quote]Polls this early mean NOTHING.

Actually, they do mean something. While it's true that they don't always predict the winner of the nomination or the general election, they matter in several other ways.

The podium order (as well as qualification for the debates) is being determined by the DNC based on polling.

Another factor is that polling well at this stage allows a candidate to attract more fundraising and bring on board a strong team of campaign managers, strategists, pollsters, etc. Candidates at the bottom of the polls are less likely to attract money and experienced staffers.

Paul Ryan thinks Biden would have better chance against Trump than other 2020 Dems.

[quote]Paul Ryan thinks Biden would have better chance against Trump than other 2020 Dems.

Funny how all the Repugs agree, isn't it? Almost like it's coordinated or something. Hm.

R510 It's like a trick to trick Sleepy Joe.

It's not Biden they are tricking, R511. It's the stupid wing of the Democratic party which, unfortunately, seems to make up at least 35% of the total. I mean, the literal thought that would have to go into believing Biden is the best choice is, "Well, Trump and his people and, now, Paul Ryan all think Biden will be the hardest candidate to beat and have, strangely, said it over and over in public...it must be true! Even though he's completely uninspiring, has no good ideas, has a horrible pile of crap from his past to deal with, is out of touch when it comes to issues of race ans sexism, and is as old as dirt, I'm votin' for Joe! That'll show them Repugs!" Idiotic sheeple.

Give me a break. If Republicans were concertedly running a reverse psychology play to prop up the candidate Trump can most easily defeat, they’d be naming Bernie Sanders as the toughest candidate. Trump would probably win all 50 states running against Bernie in a general election while dragging down all the other Democratic races, ensuring the Senate stays red.

And, yet, the moderates are the largest caucus within the democratic party, r512. And, yet, it was the moderates who won the midterms for Congress and in many cases beating the progressives in the primaries.

2020 is starting to feel like a repeat of 2016. The butthurt socialists will stay home if Biden is nominated. Bernie would be a disaster candidate and I'm not sure about Warren yet. It will be one of those three and I can see Trump winning again.

Mayor Pete is already beginning to flame out.

I really hope Kamala Harris is the nominee.

I really hope after the first round of debates, at least half a dozen candidates drop out and throw their support to her.

😂 Keep hope alive, R516. ✊

Tiebreakers Could Decide Who Makes The Second Democratic Debates

Jun. 25, 2019

Fuck that jug eared, bug eyed lickspittle Ryan with a dull chainsaw! Fuck him right in the shutter.

He needs to go straight to hell and stay there, where he belongs. Spineless, sniveling cunt.

[quote]It's not Biden they are tricking, [R511]. It's the stupid wing of the Democratic party which, unfortunately, seems to make up at least 35% of the total.

The “stupid wing” pushing hard for Biden is mostly one racial group.

If Biden is the nominee, I think he will have to ask Kamala to be his running mate. I’m not sure she would accept it.

OK. Place your bets which 0-1% candidate is going to go ballistic tonight to try to get some attention?

Tulsi? de Blasio? Ryan? Castro? Inslee?

^^ Gillibrand.

I am pulling for Betito tonight. <3 He's at center stage, and with his wingspan he can command the stage like no other. He could really make an impression tonight.

He's the incarnation of Bobby Kennedy.

In his wildest dreams, he's not Bobby Kennedy (even though he has the horse teeth).

The horse teeth are indicative of a YUGE cock.

...and he will need it to court the gay vote.

Is there going to be a new thread for the watching parties or are we just going to have to crowd in here?

r522, I think De Blasio is going to get stupid at the far end of the podium to try and push up his points.

MSNBC showed Julian and Joaquin Castro on the stage this morning. Julian appeared to be almost a foot taller than his bro. They are the same height - about 5'4". So Julian's got stilts on. Must mean he's gonna try and register in voters' minds. He's incredibly dull though. Good luck Julian.

What are de Blasio's points? I figure he only joined the race because he was pissed off the mayor of South Bend was getting so much attention and they aren't even on the same stage.

[quote]OK. Place your bets which 0-1% candidate is going to go ballistic tonight to try to get some attention?

Booker will go ballistic.

R526 Florida Chris @chrislongview on twitter is the expert on Beto's Anaconda. He's always posting pics of Beto's giant dick poking through his pants.

Elizabeth Warren is going to dominate tonight’s debate and make the others look like amateur hour.

Klobuchar is the only other competent candidate on stage tonight, and she’s polling at 1%.

Warren is going to surge after tonight.

Warren's so fucking annoying. She's like a mean nun and when she starts pulling her hokey talkin' about the mamas and the daddies - I'm gonna throw up. Cannot abide that woman.

[quote]Is there going to be a new thread for the watching parties or are we just going to have to crowd in here?

This thread will be full soon, so there should probably be an Official Debate Viewing Thread.

I created a debate viewing thread:

No wonder New Yorkers hate Bill DiBlasio.

r537, they don't.

I agree R534.

Haven't the Dems learned that the EC is toxic to liberal Mass. politicians? Dukakis & Kerry were enough of a slap in the face?

The fact that she used to be a repub is also unsettling to me.

She's Hillary 2.0 as far as the EC is concerned.

All of these positive polls were also fortelling Hills as the next White House holder & look how that turned out.

My second line should read = "Dukakis & Kerry WEREN'T enough of a slap in the face?

[quote]The fact that she used to be a repub is also unsettling to me.

That bothers me the most with her. She only made the switch when it was convenient to her and she had nothing to lose.