Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

2020: The Race For the White House - The Good Place

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The advantage that Biden has had over Warren is that, to the average person, he has a greater air of general leadership competence. He was Vice President for eight years, he's affable and avuncular (or maybe grandfatherly), and he's starred in a number of pleasing internet memes.

Warren is the scold who gave us extra geometry homework in ninth grade.

The thing is, that advantage erodes as people see more of them.

Biden doesn't really inspire confidence upon close scrutiny, while Warren's intelligence and grasp of policy details become evident.

I'd expect Warren's momentum against Biden to continue.

We’ll see. I still say her support is unstable- it’s basically the same coalition that boosted Howard Dean into the lead for months. Biden still has the old folks, the blacks, and the establishment. In the Democratic Party these are almost always the keys to victory. 

ETA- if this was football, Warren would be the flashy new team with an exciting QB, while Biden has the best offensive and defensive lines, a solid running game, and a good game manager at QB. Usually the latter team prevails. 

Edited by timschochet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

This is the first time anyone's ever been over 40% to win the 2020 Democratic nomination.

Biden and Harris and Warren had all been over 30% before.

Interesting but unimportant tidbit from that breakdown (day change) - Sanders's odds of winning the primary went down 0.7% but his odds of winning the Presidency went up 0.4%.

Edited by Gr00vus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people really lack a sense of appreciation for the work Warren has put into the campaign to be in this spot.  I think some will say Joe is faltering - but Warren has effectively rebuilt her credibility from nothing following the ancestry snafu.  She is gathering momentum on her own impetus - not simply passing a falling Joe.

 

She and Pete have - by far - run the best campaigns to date.

 

As she transitions into the front-runner - lets see how she handles the slings and arrows.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sinn Fein said:

I think people really lack a sense of appreciation for the work Warren has put into the campaign to be in this spot.  I think some will say Joe is faltering - but Warren has effectively rebuilt her credibility from nothing following the ancestry snafu.  She is gathering momentum on her own impetus - not simply passing a falling Joe.

 

She and Pete have - by far - run the best campaigns to date.

 

As she transitions into the front-runner - lets see how she handles the slings and arrows.

No question she has run an outstanding campaign. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

No question she has run an outstanding campaign. 

That'd be a refreshing change from the previous nominee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2019 at 1:10 PM, ren hoek said:

MSDNC @MSDNCNews

#BREAKING:

 

New poll of Nevada Caucus voters shows Bernie Sanders in big trouble as he plummets to first place; Warren continues her massive surge into 3rd. 

 

Full Results:

 

Sanders 29%

Biden 27

Warren 18

Harris 6

Buttigieg 4

Beto 3

Castro 2

Booker 1

Yang 1

Tulsi 1

Oh no! Not Nevada!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Hampshire poll: Monmouth

Warren 27% (+19 since May)
Biden 25% (-11)
Sanders 12% (-6)
Buttigieg 10% (+1)
Harris 3% (-3)
Booker 2% (-)
Gabbard 2% (+2)
Steyer 2% (n/a)
Yang 2% (+1)

 

 

And, with that - Warren, Biden, Sanders, and Buttigieg have all qualified for the November debates - 2 polls > 5% in early states

 

Sanders is done.  Biden is fading.  Warren is surging.  Buttigieg is stalking.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Warren + Mayor Pete would be about as extremely opposite of a ticket as Trump + Pence. So want it to happen. 

Policy wonk, hyper intelligent, Warren vs make #### up and make fun of people Trump.  

Gay Mayor Pete vs afraid of gays Pence

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren announces $10 million-plus ad buy in early states

By ALEX THOMPSON 

09/24/2019 10:59 AM EDT

 

Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign on Tuesday announced an early-state ad campaign of at least $10 million, suggesting that the Massachusetts senator is continuing to raise big money from grass-roots donors after an anemic start.

The campaign told POLITICO that a digital ad campaign would begin immediately and that the entire buy will ramp up over the next few months.

 

 

This is as much a PR move, as it is a PR move...  She gets to show fundraising strength, while at the same time building on her current momentum.  I like it from a campaign perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

A Warren + Mayor Pete would be about as extremely opposite of a ticket as Trump + Pence. So want it to happen. 

Policy wonk, hyper intelligent, Warren vs make #### up and make fun of people Trump.  

Gay Mayor Pete vs afraid of gays Pence

As much as I want Pete at the top of the ticket...this is my second choice right now.

Him in  debate with Pence or Trump would be gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nate Silver

@NateSilver538

Primary is a long way from over. But Warren rising while trying to unite the various factions of the Democratic Party, and Sanders flat/falling while not playing nice with others, is a datapoint that really supports the political science view on how nominations are won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starting to think Klobuchar might not win

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It now looks increasingly like President Trump is going to be impeached by the House of Representatives. 

If that happens, it will change all of the dynamics of this race in ways that are impossible to predict. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

The problem with a Liz/Pete ticket is that they appeal to more similar than complementary demographics.

Speaking just for me...I don't care.  IMO they are the beat two candidates for the job. (A Yang VP would be a great choice too...he is too smart to not try and get him involved somewhere)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

Speaking just for me...I don't care.  IMO they are the beat two candidates for the job. (A Yang VP would be a great choice too...he is too smart to not try and get him involved somewhere)

 

It's not a question of whether you care, it's just a question of turnout.  If the only people excited for the Dem ticket are white college educated liberals, we're kinda screwed.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.  The point is to be palatable to more individuals. And add "with money" to further narrow the demo.Though I think Pete could help with moderates.

Edited by Mystery Achiever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

What VP is really energizing anyone?

I wonder if anyone's done a study on the impact of the VP choice on election outcomes. The only one I can remember factoring into my decision making at all was Palin - and she was a huge negative in my considerations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

I wonder if anyone's done a study on the impact of the VP choice on election outcomes. The only one I can remember factoring into my decision making at all was Palin - and she was a huge negative in my considerations.

Palin made me not vote for McCain....and eventually leave the GOP

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have relatives who also didn't vote for McCain because of Palin. The choice may have more potential to be a negative than a positive, For example, if a more conservative voter was assessing whether they could live with Warren, adding Sanders as VP could close the door. But if you really don't like the pres. candidate, it is hard to see how even a VP candidate you like would change your mind.

Edited by Mystery Achiever
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

I have relatives who also didn't vote for McCain because of Palin. The choice May have more potential to be a negative than a positive, For example, if a more conservative voter was assessing whether they could live with Warren, adding Sanders as VP probably wouldn't get them there,

 

 

I kept waiting for the punch line.  I scrolled, and I scrolled, and I scrolled some more.  Nada.  :kicksrock:

 

 

ETA - of course, now this won't make any sense.  But, since you edited your post, I felt compelled to edit this one.

Edited by Sinn Fein
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Made sense to me. :lol:  I have no idea what happened there.I must have hit an errant character, but didn't see any. so just kept moving my cursor and backspacing til I stopped taking up the whole page.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, timschochet said:

No question she has run an outstanding campaign. 

The campaign that started behind because her finance director quit over internal disagreements about fundraising?  Not saying she hasn't done well to overcome problems of her own making, but it hasn't exactly been an outstanding campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gr00vus said:

I wonder if anyone's done a study on the impact of the VP choice on election outcomes. The only one I can remember factoring into my decision making at all was Palin - and she was a huge negative in my considerations.

I don't know of any study but I agree that 2008 was the only time I can remember it really factoring into my vote.  I was strongly leaning toward McCain but Palin was a deal-killer.  At the same time Obama picking Biden helped alleviate my concerns about Obama's lack of foreign policy experience.  GHWB's choice of Dan Quayle was the only other time it came close to affecting my decision but in the end I still voted for Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

Warren announces $10 million-plus ad buy in early states

By ALEX THOMPSON 

09/24/2019 10:59 AM EDT

 

Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign on Tuesday announced an early-state ad campaign of at least $10 million, suggesting that the Massachusetts senator is continuing to raise big money from grass-roots donors after an anemic start.

The campaign told POLITICO that a digital ad campaign would begin immediately and that the entire buy will ramp up over the next few months.

This money is not from the "grass roots".  Refusing corporate donations during the primaries is basically a PR stunt.  She has taken corporate money in the past, and will continue taking it after the primaries are over.  Part of her strategy was to save money from her last senate run, some of which she got from huge corporations, and then launder it through her 2020 run as "grass roots" money.  Good strategy, but she's definitely a sellout. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the highest floor of the tallest building in Boston, Senator Elizabeth Warren was busy collecting big checks from some of the city’s politically connected insiders. It was April 2018 and Ms. Warren, up for re-election, was at a breakfast fund-raiser hosted for her by John M. Connors Jr., one of the old-guard power brokers of Massachusetts.

Soon after, Ms. Warren was in Manhattan doing the same. There would be trips to Hollywood and Silicon Valley, Martha’s Vineyard and Philadelphia — all with fund-raisers on the agenda. She collected campaign funds at the private home of at least one California megadonor, and was hosted by another in Florida. She held finance events until two weeks before her all-but-assured re-election last November.

Then, early this year, Ms. Warren made a bold bet that would delight the left: She announced she was quitting this big-money circuit in the 2020 presidential primary, vowing not to attend private fund-raisers or dial up rich donors anymore. Admirers and activists praised her stand — but few noted the fact that she had built a financial cushion by pocketing big checks the years before.

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

The open secret of Ms. Warren’s campaign is that her big-money fund-raising through 2018 helped lay the foundation for her anti-big-money run for the presidency. Last winter and spring, she transferred $10.4 million in leftover funds from her 2018 Senate campaign to underwrite her 2020 run, a portion of which was raised from the same donor class she is now running against.

As Ms. Warren has risen in the polls on her populist and anti-corruption message, some donors and, privately, opponents are chafing at her campaign’s purity claims of being “100 percent grass-roots funded.” Several donors now hosting events for her rivals organized fund-raisers for her last year.

“Can you spell hypocrite?” said former Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, who contributed $4,000 to Ms. Warren in 2018 and is now supporting former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Mr. Rendell said he had recruited donors to attend an intimate fund-raising dinner for Ms. Warren last year at Barclay Prime, a Philadelphia steakhouse where the famed cheesesteak goes for $120. (The dish includes Wagyu rib-eye, foie gras, truffled cheese whiz and a half-bottle of champagne.) He said he received a “glowing thank-you letter” from Ms. Warren afterward.

But when Mr. Rendell co-hosted Mr. Biden’s first fund-raiser this spring, Ms. Warren’s campaign sent brickbats, deriding the affair as “a swanky private fund-raiser for wealthy donors,” the likes of which she now shuns.

“She didn’t have any trouble taking our money the year before,” Mr. Rendell said. “All of a sudden, we were bad guys and power brokers and influence-peddlers. In 2018, we were wonderful.”

How Elizabeth Warren Raised Big Money Before She Denounced Big Money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

On the highest floor of the tallest building in Boston, Senator Elizabeth Warren was busy collecting big checks from some of the city’s politically connected insiders. It was April 2018 and Ms. Warren, up for re-election, was at a breakfast fund-raiser hosted for her by John M. Connors Jr., one of the old-guard power brokers of Massachusetts.

Soon after, Ms. Warren was in Manhattan doing the same. There would be trips to Hollywood and Silicon Valley, Martha’s Vineyard and Philadelphia — all with fund-raisers on the agenda. She collected campaign funds at the private home of at least one California megadonor, and was hosted by another in Florida. She held finance events until two weeks before her all-but-assured re-election last November.

Then, early this year, Ms. Warren made a bold bet that would delight the left: She announced she was quitting this big-money circuit in the 2020 presidential primary, vowing not to attend private fund-raisers or dial up rich donors anymore. Admirers and activists praised her stand — but few noted the fact that she had built a financial cushion by pocketing big checks the years before.

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

The open secret of Ms. Warren’s campaign is that her big-money fund-raising through 2018 helped lay the foundation for her anti-big-money run for the presidency. Last winter and spring, she transferred $10.4 million in leftover funds from her 2018 Senate campaign to underwrite her 2020 run, a portion of which was raised from the same donor class she is now running against.

As Ms. Warren has risen in the polls on her populist and anti-corruption message, some donors and, privately, opponents are chafing at her campaign’s purity claims of being “100 percent grass-roots funded.” Several donors now hosting events for her rivals organized fund-raisers for her last year.

“Can you spell hypocrite?” said former Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, who contributed $4,000 to Ms. Warren in 2018 and is now supporting former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Mr. Rendell said he had recruited donors to attend an intimate fund-raising dinner for Ms. Warren last year at Barclay Prime, a Philadelphia steakhouse where the famed cheesesteak goes for $120. (The dish includes Wagyu rib-eye, foie gras, truffled cheese whiz and a half-bottle of champagne.) He said he received a “glowing thank-you letter” from Ms. Warren afterward.

But when Mr. Rendell co-hosted Mr. Biden’s first fund-raiser this spring, Ms. Warren’s campaign sent brickbats, deriding the affair as “a swanky private fund-raiser for wealthy donors,” the likes of which she now shuns.

“She didn’t have any trouble taking our money the year before,” Mr. Rendell said. “All of a sudden, we were bad guys and power brokers and influence-peddlers. In 2018, we were wonderful.”

How Elizabeth Warren Raised Big Money Before She Denounced Big Money

You’re a weird cat

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

This money is not from the "grass roots".  Refusing corporate donations during the primaries is basically a PR stunt.  She has taken corporate money in the past, and will continue taking it after the primaries are over.  Part of her strategy was to save money from her last senate run, some of which she got from huge corporations, and then launder it through her 2020 run as "grass roots" money.  Good strategy, but she's definitely a sellout. 

She the type to call out wall street publicly on Monday and go to a wall street funded donor event on Friday privately.  The bankers are not as scared of her as the media portrays.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Max Power said:

She the type to call out wall street publicly on Monday and go to a wall street funded donor event on Friday privately.  The bankers are not as scared of her as the media portrays.   

Traditionally the key to winning a Presidential election is to run as far to the left or right to win the nomination, and then pivot back to the center in the general election. Trump broke that tradition but I don’t think it’s dead. 

My judgment is that Warren’s run too far to the left. If she wins the nomination she won’t be able to pivot back to the center even if she tries: most of the nation will perceive her as the most leftist candidate for President that we’ve ever had. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Traditionally the key to winning a Presidential election is to run as far to the left or right to win the nomination, and then pivot back to the center in the general election. Trump broke that tradition but I don’t think it’s dead. 

My judgment is that Warren’s run too far to the left. If she wins the nomination she won’t be able to pivot back to the center even if she tries: most of the nation will perceive her as the most leftist candidate for President that we’ve ever had. 

I think she will be ok after Joe drops out and the establishment Dems push more endorsements her way.  She just stole a major one from Bernie.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/16/20868862/working-families-party-endorsement-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren

Quote

This is a big deal for Warren: WFP has local branches and works closely with unions, activists, and organizations across the country. It has real connections and resources that will be valuable to the Massachusetts Democrat’s campaign.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monmouth poll has Warren surging. 

Biden’s in a precarious situation. The Ukraine story is a fake scandal but it still puts a negative spotlight on Hunter Biden that may alienate voters. 

But the bigger issue is the impeachment, which changes everything. If Democratic voters decide that Trump is so weakened he will lose to anyone, that will destroy Biden’s whole justification as a candidate and embolden the base to go with a progressive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New national Quinnipiac poll confirms that Warren's rise is very real.

Also: another troubling data point for Kamala Harris 
 
Warren: 27
Biden: 25
Sanders: 16
Buttigieg: 7
Harris: 3
O’Rourke: 2
Booker
Klobuchar: 2
Castro: 2
Yang: 2

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to shape up into Warren v. Buttigieg for the nomination.

Warren is the clear front-runner now.

Biden's strength was that he was leading, and seen as most likely to beat Trump.  Once that veneer is gone, he really has nothing left to run on.

Sanders is running in his own lane.  He does not have the broad appeal to move forward, and quite frankly his support is fading.

That leaves Buttigieg to challenge Warren from the center, more moderate wing of the Dem party.

 

So far - a much better primary than the 2016 cycle.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sinn Fein said:

This is going to shape up into Warren v. Buttigieg for the nomination.

Warren is the clear front-runner now.

Biden's strength was that he was leading, and seen as most likely to beat Trump.  Once that veneer is gone, he really has nothing left to run on.

Sanders is running in his own lane.  He does not have the broad appeal to move forward, and quite frankly his support is fading.

That leaves Buttigieg to challenge Warren from the center, more moderate wing of the Dem party.

 

So far - a much better primary than the 2016 cycle.

Agree with this.  Even if none of it is really there...even the sniff of improper behavior with Joe and his son is bad for him.  Odd against someone with so much stink of improper behavior in the Oval.  But he is yet to be up really against him.  And Warren and Pete are cleaner and running better campaigns.  I also think if its coming late down to those two...they won't be beating each other up too bad/too negative.  Doesn't seem like what either would do (Warren maybe would).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Things aren’t good for Joe right now but I think you guys are dismissing him way too soon. 

He is just not a great candidate.  He is holding on because he looks like Grandpa and was Obama's VP.

There is enough appearance of improper behavior with his son that any other year he would be toxic.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The danger now is Trump picking off those most dangerous to him one by one, by holding them to ridiculous standards that he doesn't come within a light year of meeting himself. We now know definitively that Sleepy Joe scared him very much and "Ukranian corruption" is now Biden's Benghazi, meaningless in context but tasty to the red meat base.

If he gets Biden out of the race, he'll go after whoever his successor is. Dem voters are gonna have to stay strong because there's barnyards of crap yet to be flung.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Warren, this is the most promising part of that Quinnipiac poll - she's making inroads with black folks:

Black Voters

July:
Biden 53%
Warren 4%

August:
Biden 47%
Warren 8%

September:
Biden 40%
Warren 19%

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, caustic said:

For Warren, this is the most promising part of that Quinnipiac poll - she's making inroads with black folks:


Black Voters

July:
Biden 53%
Warren 4%

August:
Biden 47%
Warren 8%

September:
Biden 40%
Warren 19%

 

That’s terrible for Biden. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New California primary poll from UC Berkley:

Warren 29% (+11 since June)

Biden 20% (-2)

Sanders 19% (+2)

Harris 8% (-5)

Buttigieg 6% (-4)

O’Rourke 3% (-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, timschochet said:

That’s terrible for Biden. 

Biden is going to need some fire in his belly if he wants to get back in the race.

So far, I have not seen anything from Biden about why he should be President.  A lot of stuff on why Trump should not be president - but to win you need to articulate why you deserve the job.  Very reminiscent of the mistakes Clinton made in her campaign. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sinn Fein said:

Biden is going to need some fire in his belly if he wants to get back in the race.

So far, I have not seen anything from Biden about why he should be President.  A lot of stuff on why Trump should not be president - but to win you need to articulate why you deserve the job.  Very reminiscent of the mistakes Clinton made in her campaign. 

Agreed. But I thought it wouldn’t matter this time around because he’s such a counterweight to Trump. And it still might work out that way. But the impeachment  changes everything, it destroys all the rules. We’ve never had an impeachment this close to an election before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, caustic said:

New California primary poll from UC Berkley:

Warren 29% (+11 since June)

Biden 20% (-2)

Sanders 19% (+2)

Harris 8% (-5)

Buttigieg 6% (-4)

O’Rourke 3% (-)

Harris should drop out if her internal polls are saying the same thing.   I know we're still 5 months away from early voting but she absolutely has to win CA to be considered a serious candidate.  Even a second place finish would be bad.  A fourth place finish would be a total embarrassment for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Marauder said:

Harris should drop out if her internal polls are saying the same thing.   I know we're still 5 months away from early voting but she absolutely has to win CA to be considered a serious candidate.  Even a second place finish would be bad.  A fourth place finish would be a total embarrassment for her.

It is WAY too early to be making those kind of conclusions from these polls.

 

Harris has an uphill climb - no doubt.  But this is not a straight, linear, race.  She still has a chance to represent a more centrist approach to counter Warren.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

It is WAY too early to be making those kind of conclusions from these polls.

 

Harris has an uphill climb - no doubt.  But this is not a straight, linear, race.  She still has a chance to represent a more centrist approach to counter Warren.

Exactly. Here is a formula for Harris: 

1. Warren wins Iowa, Biden trails badly, is shocked. 

2. Warren wins New Hampshire, again Biden trails badly. Now blacks in South Carolina are unsure. Harris campaigns hard in South Carolina. 

3. Warren wins South Carolina, Biden finishes a disappointing 2nd, and is on the ropes. But Harris surprises with a 3rd place finish at 15%. 

4. Biden drops out. Bernie drops out. Warren is racking up the wins, but a lot of the centrist vote and black vote is going to Harris, she’s picking up steam. 

5. Harris wins California. It’s a 2 woman race. 

And at that point the entire establishment, still fearful that Warren can’t win in the fall, gets behind Kamala. 

I’m not saying this will happen, but it’s the sort of thing that could. No reason for her or anyone else to leave the race yet (except for Tulsi.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Exactly. Here is a formula for Harris: 

1. Warren wins Iowa, Biden trails badly, is shocked. 

2. Warren wins New Hampshire, again Biden trails badly. Now blacks in South Carolina are unsure. Harris campaigns hard in South Carolina. 

3. Warren wins South Carolina, Biden finishes a disappointing 2nd, and is on the ropes. But Harris surprises with a 3rd place finish at 15%. 

4. Biden drops out. Bernie drops out. Warren is racking up the wins, but a lot of the centrist vote and black vote is going to Harris, she’s picking up steam. 

5. Harris wins California. It’s a 2 woman race. 

And at that point the entire establishment, still fearful that Warren can’t win in the fall, gets behind Kamala. 

I’m not saying this will happen, but it’s the sort of thing that could. No reason for her or anyone else to leave the race yet (except for Tulsi.) 

I admit it was a little bit of hyperbole to say she should drop out now but she absolutely has to win CA to have a chance and with 2 recent polls showing her between 6-8% that's a very very bad sign.  You would expect, as a "favorite son" candidate she should have the early lead in CA before the other candidates start seriously campaigning there.

She was my early favorite to win the nomination and I still like her a lot but she's run a terrible campaign so far.   I think her chances of winning the nomination is probably less than 1% right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Marauder said:

I admit it was a little bit of hyperbole to say she should drop out now but she absolutely has to win CA to have a chance and with 2 recent polls showing her between 6-8% that's a very very bad sign.  You would expect, as a "favorite son" candidate she should have the early lead in CA before the other candidates start seriously campaigning there.

She was my early favorite to win the nomination and I still like her a lot but she's run a terrible campaign so far.   I think her chances of winning the nomination is probably less than 1% right now.

I think at this point she's probably running for V.P. I'm not sure what timing is best for relinquishing a Presidential campaign if that's the new target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

 

4. Biden drops out. Bernie drops out. Warren is racking up the wins, but a lot of the centrist vote and black vote is going to Harris, she’s picking up steam. 

It is really hard to imagine any even Top Five candidate dropping out before Super Tuesday, let alone two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.