I can’t see Michael Bloomberg’s run as anything other than a vanity project. If he really wants to use his money to fight Trump, he ought to be putting it behind another candidate who actually stands a chance of being elected.
The explanation is probably simple: Not-particularly-early-onset dementia.
For the love of God, look at what Trump has done to the Presidency. Look at what he's done to US government, governance, exchequer, alliances, national treasures, the climate, and reputation in the global community.
Then look at all the earnest, passionate, smart and possibly semi-honest candidates vying to replace him and ask yourself in all seriousness: who in her or his right mind would WANT this job?
For the love of God, look at what Trump has done to the Presidency. Look at what he's done to US government, governance, exchequer, alliances, national treasures, the climate, and reputation in the global community.
Then look at all the earnest, passionate, smart and possibly semi-honest candidates vying to replace him and ask yourself in all seriousness: who in her or his right mind would WANT this job?
Aside from all the usual pressures of the job, imagine what the next Democratic president is going to have to do to reassure the rest of the world that the U.S. is a trustworthy ally and partner again. Obama did something similar early in his term, trying to reassure the world that the U.S. wasn't going to do the crazy shit it did during the George W. Bush years any more. Republicans hit the roof over that, dubbing this rather mild exercise in necessary diplomacy the "Obama apology tour". Now just imagine what kind of effort is going to be necessary after Trump leaves office (and the likely Republican reaction).
And the trouble is (as all thinking people know) that whoever-it-is CAN'T guarantee that we won't ever do it again. If it's happened once, it can happen again.
The struggle, I think, will be to keep the USA on the field in the face of the reaction of the American public to the aggression of the Bush Administration and the stupid inconsistency of Trump. The leadership of other democratic countries realises that without the USA we are in serious trouble, and are therefore prepared to forgive excesses. Apology not needed.
The isolationism of the American left is fine. We know the Republicans won't cop that, nor most Democratic politicians. Gabbard and maybe Sanders are the risk at present. Gabbard can be discounted, but Sanders doesn't focus much on international policy. I'm not sure if he's isolationist or what we need, a conciliar approach to international affairs like Warren.
The people who scare me are the right wing isolationists - the ones who say stuff like, 'why should we spill American blood for a patch of sand?'; 'America first!'; 'endless wars'; and 'bring them home'. They seem to be in the ascendancy now, and Trump certainly believes that pandering to them is an electoral plus for him. These policies are getting support in publications like The American Conservative, which regularly has opinion pieces arguing for an isolationist approach.
So yeah, a stupidly aggressive America is to be preferred to an American tortoise, from the perspective of America's allies.
Bloomberg is throwing $58 mil down a rabbit hole, trying to get traction for the up-coming Super Primary. He will not be officially on the ballot in Iowa or New Hampshire or South Carolina, Historically, no late-comer has been able to enter the race and get the nomination.
After the first week of his advertisement blitz, he is polling at just 3% of likely voters according to CNN.
Those of you who had Joe Sestak in the office betting pool as the next Democratic presidential candidate to drop out can now collect your winnings. Everyone else can Google "Joe Sestak" to remind themselves (or find out in the first place) who he is. Unlike several already-withdrawn candidates, Sestak never had enough support to qualify for the any of the Democratic primary debates.
With both Sestak and Bullock I had to Google to see what they looked like -- and once I did, they don't even look familiar. I hope the list of potential candidates gets down to a reasonable number soon.
As do I. The more time this period of a million candidates lasts, the more no chance in hell hopefuls people will get attached to and the less chance of dislodging the festering boil.
With both Sestak and Bullock I had to Google to see what they looked like -- and once I did, they don't even look familiar. I hope the list of potential candidates gets down to a reasonable number soon.
Technically speaking there are only four plausible candidates in the Democratic presidential primary at this point. It's been a month since my last assessment of the race and since you gave me such a nice set up . . .
The Front Runner
Joe Biden
Joe Biden is back in the sole lead according to most polls, after a brief surge of Warren drawing nearly even with him. He polls between 24% and 30% support nationally among likely Democratic primary/caucus voters.
The Second Tier
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Warren has dropped down to the mid-teens with Sanders again.
The Long Shot
Pete Buttigieg
Buttigieg has surged lately, finally breaking through into low double-digit support in most polls. He's still trailing Sanders and Warren by more than the margin of error in most polls, though.
No Chance/Running for Cabinet
Michael Bennet
Cory Booker
Julián Castro
John Delaney
Tulsi Gabbard
Amy Klobuchar
Kamala Harris
Tom Steyer
Marianne Williamson
Andrew Yang
All the candidates on the above list are polling below 5% support. Kamala Harris is a new addition to this list, polling no higher than 5% in any national post-fifth-debate poll.
The Dropouts
Bill de Blasio
Steve Bullock
Kirsten Gillibrand
Mike Gravel
John Hickenlooper
Jay Inslee
Wayne Messam
Seth Moulton
Richard Ojeda
Beto O'Rourke
Tim Ryan
Joe Sestak
Eric Swalwell
These candidates have ended their run for the nomination. Five names have been added to this list since my last entry: Bullock, Messam, O'Rourke, Ryan, and Sestak.
Here's some early state polling. A win, or even a strong showing, in one of these states can boost a lower-tier candidate to prominence.
Iowa: [3 Feb, 41 delegates] No post-fifth-debate polls for this state yet, but early November polling has pretty much a four-way tie between Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders, and Warren, with the exception of one poll that gives Buttigieg a commanding lead.
New Hampshire: [11 Feb, 24 delegates] The two post-fifth-debate polls for this state are either the same four-way tie we saw in Iowa, or Buttigieg and Sanders tied for first with Biden and Warren tied for third.
Nevada: [22 Feb, 36 delegates] Still not a lot of polls of Nevada. The polls that do exist from early November indicate Biden having the lead, Warren and Sanders tied for second place, and no one else drawing more than single-digit support. The only dispute between the polls is whether Biden's lead is large or modest in this state.
South Carolina: [29 Feb, 54 delegates] No post-fifth-debate polls in this state either, but early November polling for this state is pretty much the same as Nevada. Biden in front, Sanders and Warren tied for second, and no one else with significant support. The main difference with Nevada is that Biden's margin is huge.
So this is the current "state of play" about two months before anyone will be casting a vote anywhere.
You did not include Bloomberg. Also, I disagree Buttigieg is a long shot. He is polling ahead of everyone in Iowa. South Carolina may be his Watterloo, though.
Not enough polling yet to tell where to put him. My guess would be in with the "No Chance/Running for Cabinet" group, but didn't want to put him there based on a gut feeling.
He is gay. Unfortunately, I think that means he doesn't stand a chance.
Which although unfortunate as to what that means about people's reactions to gay men, it's very fortunate as to what that entails. Because he's no Democrat, being a right-center Republican-lite.
I'd put Klobuchar among the long shots. She did well in the last debate, and she can be expected to do well in Iowa. (She gets the fact that the Midwest is a lot more than flyover country.) Don't count her out quite yet.
The voters who would be put off by his being gay are most likely the ones who would never vote for any Democrat ever.
Things are better, but I have doubts those polls will reflect actual voters in the booths. For one, older people tend to vote more but they also support LGBTQ+ less. Also, support for LGBTQ+ issues is not a black/white thing. There is every shade of grey in there and some of those shades affect votes.
I'd put Klobuchar among the long shots. She did well in the last debate, and she can be expected to do well in Iowa.
Possibly, but we still don't have Iowa-level post-fifth-debate polling to show that she moved the needle at all. In national post-fifth-debate polls she's still showing support in the low single digits (2%-3%). I'll be happy to move her over if she show an improvement in polling.
As pointed out, most Americans, especially Millennials, do not care who you sleeping with. Millennials can be the largest voting block if they turn out this election. It is a big if, I grant you.
There is a big difference between saying gay marriage is OK and not caring who sleeps with who.
And millennials will not be the largest voting block. And even if they are, there will be stupid people voting for candidates that don't have a prayer. The only hope I have is the very small hope that I am wrong about how people will vote.
As pointed out, most Americans, especially Millennials, do not care who you sleeping with. Millennials can be the largest voting block if they turn out this election. It is a big if, I grant you.
If anyone can pull them out, Sanders can, I think. I'm coming around to the view that if Sanders can win the nomination, I don't have to worry about him being the candidate, on the basis that he must have built that movement and got new people to the polls.
I'm starting to wobble about my dream President, Elizabeth Warren. I worry that she hasn't stood up well to the blowtorch of being a serious contender, and things keep coming out suggesting that she gilds the lilly by habit. I don't care about that one jot, but I worry that she will lose centrist votes and independents because of it. It makes no sense, given the bastard in the WH, but I fear it nevertheless. I think her publication of a detailed medicare for all policy with no private option was a bad call, her second so far.
I like Klochbar heaps. She strikes me as eminently electable and she has a bite that I like. She hasn't made many mistakes, but she hasn't been spotlighted yet. I hope she does well in the early states and gets a kickalong.
Biden is right out for me. I don't like him. His no malarkey campaign slogan has the whiff of death.
Buttigieg I am leery of, but I don't quite know why. I think he's too inexperienced.
Naturally, I would take anyone over Trump in a heartbeat. Anyone except Gabbard. I refuse to say that she should be President unless and until I have to.
As US schools (especially at the elementary level) are populated from surrounding neighborhoods, and the US housing market is pretty strictly de facto segregated by both income and race, it's probably more correct to say that US schools are segregated. And yes, anyone aspiring to the US presidency ought to know that.
Information on Restorative Justice in schools here.
Buttigieg and Gabbard out of Hawaii are the only two candidates with any military experience. Gabbard is out for me because I think she fell into the pocket of the Clintons (personal feeling). Buttigieg is still in the running.
Fixed the broken second link. The first is not accessible in the UK (and possibly the EU). BroJames Purgatory Host
As US schools (especially at the elementary level) are populated from surrounding neighborhoods, and the US housing market is pretty strictly de facto segregated by both income and race, it's probably more correct to say that US schools are segregated. And yes, anyone aspiring to the US presidency ought to know that.
I am sorry, you make it sound as if ALL US schools are segregated. That is not the case. I am pleased to say all my kids and grandkids have gone to integrated schools. This is mostly a problem in major cities and in the South.
There goes my dream of a Biden-Harris ticket. Democrats better have something more for black voters - especially black women - than getting rid of Trump. After all, everyone knew what he was in 2016.
While there's no reason president can't pick a former primary opponent and current Senator as a running mate (Biden himself was both when Obama picked him in 2008) it seems ill-advised for any president to voluntarily take senators of his own party out of the Senate. Yes, California is a Democratic stronghold, but weird things can happen in special elections.
There goes my dream of a Biden-Harris ticket. Democrats better have something more for black voters - especially black women - than getting rid of Trump. After all, everyone knew what he was in 2016.
Biden can nominate anyone he wants for VP--it could be Harris, though I think she may be a better Attorney General.
Gabbard is out for me because I think she fell into the pocket of the Clintons (personal feeling).
I was under the impression that Gabbard and Hillary Clinton were deadly enemies. I got that impression from Clinton's hit on Gabbard about a month ago, and Gabbard's response.
Gabbard is out for me because I think she fell into the pocket of the Clintons (personal feeling).
I was under the impression that Gabbard and Hillary Clinton were deadly enemies. I got that impression from Clinton's hit on Gabbard about a month ago, and Gabbard's response.
Let me back track a bit. I did not mean Clinton. I also saw the same information. I meant Trump. Trump apparently likes her. Trump congratulates Gabbard after Harris drops out. Harris and Gabbard really went after each other.
I wonder whom the voters and donors (big and small) who were supporting Harris will give their support to now that she is suspending her campaign. Here is one attempt to measure whom they would support.
California, which has tons of voters and donor money, has an early primary in 2020, so I imagine there are a decent amount of people there who would have supported her that are now up for grabs.
I wonder whom the voters and donors (big and small) who were supporting Harris will give their support to now that she is suspending her campaign. Here is one attempt to measure whom they would support.
California, which has tons of voters and donor money, has an early primary in 2020, so I imagine there are a decent amount of people there who would have supported her that are now up for grabs.
Has a deal been done? Surely all those big tech dollars aren't going to go to Sanders or Warren. They are going to be stepping right - into the pocket of a reputedly cash-strapped Malarkey vendor.
Has a deal been done? Surely all those big tech dollars aren't going to go to Sanders or Warren. They are going to be stepping right - into the pocket of a reputedly cash-strapped Malarkey vendor.
Warren and Sanders were the top two choices for donors at a number of other major tech companies, including Apple, Amazon and Microsoft. Sanders did particularly well among Amazon employees, raising nearly $60,000 from 247 donors. The Vermont senator has been a major critic of Amazon’s chief executive, Jeff Bezos, even naming a bill targeting corporate employers whose workers rely on food stamps or other federal benefits after him.
At least 75 of Sanders’s Amazon donors appear to be workers from the company’s vast network of warehouses and fulfillment centers or from its grocery chain Whole Foods. One Georgia resident who has made 18 small donations to Sanders listed his occupation as a “wage slave”; another listed himself as a “slave”. Altogether these Amazon workers have donated more than $17,000 to Sanders.
Only natural people (i.e. flesh and blood folks, not corporate entities) can donate directly to political campaigns, so I guess Big Tech corporations will have to content themselves with contributions to SuperPACs to make their influence felt.
Yeah, good point, although that won't be changing because Harris dropped.
I am more and more gobsmacked by the 'No Malarkey' slogan. It seems so utterly lame to me. How do my American shipmates feel about it? Is my reaction different to how many Americans would react? I think the intention is good, focusing on honesty, but I would prefer something like, "No more crap" or "Stop the Lying", something more direct.
Yeah, good point, although that won't be changing because Harris dropped.
I am more and more gobsmacked by the 'No Malarkey' slogan. It seems so utterly lame to me. How do my American shipmates feel about it? Is my reaction different to how many Americans would react? I think the intention is good, focusing on honesty, but I would prefer something like, "No more crap" or "Stop the Lying", something more direct.
RE: The No Malarkey slogan--goes to show just how much out of touch Joe really is.
Then there is the video of Joe nibbling on wife's fingers. Creepy.
I wonder whom the voters and donors (big and small) who were supporting Harris will give their support to now that she is suspending her campaign. Here is one attempt to measure whom they would support.
California, which has tons of voters and donor money, has an early primary in 2020, so I imagine there are a decent amount of people there who would have supported her that are now up for grabs.
Depends on what constitutes "a decent amount of people." The LA Times reports that
[a] poll, conducted by the Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies for The Times, showed that by 61% to 24%, likely Democratic primary voters in California thought Harris should quit the race.
A large majority of Harris’ own supporters wanted her to stay in the race, but her support in the state had steadily slipped, and she was the first choice of only 7% of the state’s Democratic primary voters, according to the poll, which was conducted Nov. 21-27.
She couldn't get traction in her home state, and for good reason. She hasn't really done much in the Senate, and she couldn't figure out what to say about her record as California's Attorney General.
I don't understand why anyone seriously interested in ousting Donald "Nasty, nasty" Trump would support Crazy Uncle Bernie or Elizabeth "I have a plan for that" Warren; both are too old and, more importantly, too far to the left for most voters. (They are much too far left for me, but I will vote for the Democratic nominee regardless; the future of the Republic depends on getting Trump out of the White House.)
Biden is rather dim, a serial plagiarist (I loathe plagiarism), and too old - but I'll vote for him if it comes down to that, because I'm desperate to get that orange sociopath out of the White House.
@Rossweisse a pet theory of mine is that there are two Democrat paths to victory. The first is to draw people who voted for him in strategic states and win the College that way. That's the Biden route.
The second is to motivate non voters in those states to vote Democrat this time around That's the Sanders/Warren route.
My gut tells me Biden's route is more likely. But if Sanders or Warren wins the nomination, that probably means they have managed to get a whole lot of first time voters to turn out. There is every reason to think that if new voters turn out for the primary they will turn out for the general election. That means that my gut is wrong.
Warren and Biden have both said they would consider Harris for VP. Biden went so far as to say she could be the Attorney General or even a judge on the Supreme Court.
The second is to motivate non voters in those states to vote Democrat this time around That's the Sanders/Warren route.
It should be noted that this was also the Obama route. Nine million more Americans cast ballots in 2008 than did in 2004 making Obama the first American president in twenty years to win an outright majority of the popular vote.
Comments
For the love of God, look at what Trump has done to the Presidency. Look at what he's done to US government, governance, exchequer, alliances, national treasures, the climate, and reputation in the global community.
Then look at all the earnest, passionate, smart and possibly semi-honest candidates vying to replace him and ask yourself in all seriousness: who in her or his right mind would WANT this job?
Aside from all the usual pressures of the job, imagine what the next Democratic president is going to have to do to reassure the rest of the world that the U.S. is a trustworthy ally and partner again. Obama did something similar early in his term, trying to reassure the world that the U.S. wasn't going to do the crazy shit it did during the George W. Bush years any more. Republicans hit the roof over that, dubbing this rather mild exercise in necessary diplomacy the "Obama apology tour". Now just imagine what kind of effort is going to be necessary after Trump leaves office (and the likely Republican reaction).
Twice if you count W.
The isolationism of the American left is fine. We know the Republicans won't cop that, nor most Democratic politicians. Gabbard and maybe Sanders are the risk at present. Gabbard can be discounted, but Sanders doesn't focus much on international policy. I'm not sure if he's isolationist or what we need, a conciliar approach to international affairs like Warren.
The people who scare me are the right wing isolationists - the ones who say stuff like, 'why should we spill American blood for a patch of sand?'; 'America first!'; 'endless wars'; and 'bring them home'. They seem to be in the ascendancy now, and Trump certainly believes that pandering to them is an electoral plus for him. These policies are getting support in publications like The American Conservative, which regularly has opinion pieces arguing for an isolationist approach.
So yeah, a stupidly aggressive America is to be preferred to an American tortoise, from the perspective of America's allies.
After the first week of his advertisement blitz, he is polling at just 3% of likely voters according to CNN.
Someone should check on John Delaney.
Technically speaking there are only four plausible candidates in the Democratic presidential primary at this point. It's been a month since my last assessment of the race and since you gave me such a nice set up . . .
The Front Runner
Joe Biden is back in the sole lead according to most polls, after a brief surge of Warren drawing nearly even with him. He polls between 24% and 30% support nationally among likely Democratic primary/caucus voters.
The Second Tier
Warren has dropped down to the mid-teens with Sanders again.
The Long Shot
Buttigieg has surged lately, finally breaking through into low double-digit support in most polls. He's still trailing Sanders and Warren by more than the margin of error in most polls, though.
No Chance/Running for Cabinet
All the candidates on the above list are polling below 5% support. Kamala Harris is a new addition to this list, polling no higher than 5% in any national post-fifth-debate poll.
The Dropouts
These candidates have ended their run for the nomination. Five names have been added to this list since my last entry: Bullock, Messam, O'Rourke, Ryan, and Sestak.
Here's some early state polling. A win, or even a strong showing, in one of these states can boost a lower-tier candidate to prominence.
Iowa: [3 Feb, 41 delegates] No post-fifth-debate polls for this state yet, but early November polling has pretty much a four-way tie between Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders, and Warren, with the exception of one poll that gives Buttigieg a commanding lead.
New Hampshire: [11 Feb, 24 delegates] The two post-fifth-debate polls for this state are either the same four-way tie we saw in Iowa, or Buttigieg and Sanders tied for first with Biden and Warren tied for third.
Nevada: [22 Feb, 36 delegates] Still not a lot of polls of Nevada. The polls that do exist from early November indicate Biden having the lead, Warren and Sanders tied for second place, and no one else drawing more than single-digit support. The only dispute between the polls is whether Biden's lead is large or modest in this state.
South Carolina: [29 Feb, 54 delegates] No post-fifth-debate polls in this state either, but early November polling for this state is pretty much the same as Nevada. Biden in front, Sanders and Warren tied for second, and no one else with significant support. The main difference with Nevada is that Biden's margin is huge.
So this is the current "state of play" about two months before anyone will be casting a vote anywhere.
So far only
Not enough polling yet to tell where to put him. My guess would be in with the "No Chance/Running for Cabinet" group, but didn't want to put him there based on a gut feeling.
Given that some polling suggests he leads the pack, that's an odd conclusion. Add to that the fact that younger evangelicals are more liberal than their elders on some issues, and that US voters support same sex marriage by a margin of about 2 to 1, I doubt Mayor Pete's sexuality is a deal-breaker for many voters.
The voters who would be put off by his being gay are most likely the ones who would never vote for any Democrat ever.
Which although unfortunate as to what that means about people's reactions to gay men, it's very fortunate as to what that entails. Because he's no Democrat, being a right-center Republican-lite.
Possibly, but we still don't have Iowa-level post-fifth-debate polling to show that she moved the needle at all. In national post-fifth-debate polls she's still showing support in the low single digits (2%-3%). I'll be happy to move her over if she show an improvement in polling.
And millennials will not be the largest voting block. And even if they are, there will be stupid people voting for candidates that don't have a prayer. The only hope I have is the very small hope that I am wrong about how people will vote.
If anyone can pull them out, Sanders can, I think. I'm coming around to the view that if Sanders can win the nomination, I don't have to worry about him being the candidate, on the basis that he must have built that movement and got new people to the polls.
I'm starting to wobble about my dream President, Elizabeth Warren. I worry that she hasn't stood up well to the blowtorch of being a serious contender, and things keep coming out suggesting that she gilds the lilly by habit. I don't care about that one jot, but I worry that she will lose centrist votes and independents because of it. It makes no sense, given the bastard in the WH, but I fear it nevertheless. I think her publication of a detailed medicare for all policy with no private option was a bad call, her second so far.
I like Klochbar heaps. She strikes me as eminently electable and she has a bite that I like. She hasn't made many mistakes, but she hasn't been spotlighted yet. I hope she does well in the early states and gets a kickalong.
Biden is right out for me. I don't like him. His no malarkey campaign slogan has the whiff of death.
Buttigieg I am leery of, but I don't quite know why. I think he's too inexperienced.
Naturally, I would take anyone over Trump in a heartbeat. Anyone except Gabbard. I refuse to say that she should be President unless and until I have to.
Second) Only two of the primary schools, a high school, and a specialized academy are out of compliance and those issues are relatively minor.
Third) The school district is working at instituting a program on restorative justice district wide, which in itself is quite progressive
Story Here/
Information on Restorative Justice in schools here.
Buttigieg and Gabbard out of Hawaii are the only two candidates with any military experience. Gabbard is out for me because I think she fell into the pocket of the Clintons (personal feeling). Buttigieg is still in the running.
Fixed the broken second link. The first is not accessible in the UK (and possibly the EU). BroJames Purgatory Host
I am sorry, you make it sound as if ALL US schools are segregated. That is not the case. I am pleased to say all my kids and grandkids have gone to integrated schools. This is mostly a problem in major cities and in the South.
Apologies for the double post as well.
While there's no reason president can't pick a former primary opponent and current Senator as a running mate (Biden himself was both when Obama picked him in 2008) it seems ill-advised for any president to voluntarily take senators of his own party out of the Senate. Yes, California is a Democratic stronghold, but weird things can happen in special elections.
Biden can nominate anyone he wants for VP--it could be Harris, though I think she may be a better Attorney General.
I was under the impression that Gabbard and Hillary Clinton were deadly enemies. I got that impression from Clinton's hit on Gabbard about a month ago, and Gabbard's response.
Let me back track a bit. I did not mean Clinton. I also saw the same information. I meant Trump. Trump apparently likes her. Trump congratulates Gabbard after Harris drops out. Harris and Gabbard really went after each other.
California, which has tons of voters and donor money, has an early primary in 2020, so I imagine there are a decent amount of people there who would have supported her that are now up for grabs.
Has a deal been done? Surely all those big tech dollars aren't going to go to Sanders or Warren. They are going to be stepping right - into the pocket of a reputedly cash-strapped Malarkey vendor.
Depends. Big Tech doesn't support Warren or Sanders, but they're quite popular with Big Tech's workers.
Only natural people (i.e. flesh and blood folks, not corporate entities) can donate directly to political campaigns, so I guess Big Tech corporations will have to content themselves with contributions to SuperPACs to make their influence felt.
I am more and more gobsmacked by the 'No Malarkey' slogan. It seems so utterly lame to me. How do my American shipmates feel about it? Is my reaction different to how many Americans would react? I think the intention is good, focusing on honesty, but I would prefer something like, "No more crap" or "Stop the Lying", something more direct.
RE: The No Malarkey slogan--goes to show just how much out of touch Joe really is.
Then there is the video of Joe nibbling on wife's fingers. Creepy.
The point is not what he did or didn't do. The point is that he simply didn't know.
Depends on what constitutes "a decent amount of people." The LA Times reports that
She couldn't get traction in her home state, and for good reason. She hasn't really done much in the Senate, and she couldn't figure out what to say about her record as California's Attorney General.
Not all that sure that Harris is any more in touch (with reality).
Biden is rather dim, a serial plagiarist (I loathe plagiarism), and too old - but I'll vote for him if it comes down to that, because I'm desperate to get that orange sociopath out of the White House.
Harris is moot. She has dropped out.
The second is to motivate non voters in those states to vote Democrat this time around That's the Sanders/Warren route.
My gut tells me Biden's route is more likely. But if Sanders or Warren wins the nomination, that probably means they have managed to get a whole lot of first time voters to turn out. There is every reason to think that if new voters turn out for the primary they will turn out for the general election. That means that my gut is wrong.
It should be noted that this was also the Obama route. Nine million more Americans cast ballots in 2008 than did in 2004 making Obama the first American president in twenty years to win an outright majority of the popular vote.