Over the last month, following his formal entry into
the Democratic presidential primary contest, former vice president Joe
Biden surged more than 10 points
in polling conducted by CNN and its partner SSRS. His lead in this poll
is now twice that of the second-most popular candidate, Sen. Bernie
Sanders (I-Vt.), whose numbers dropped slightly. Biden’s support, in
fact, is now larger than that of the next four candidates combined.
(Philip Bump/The Washington Post)
Why?
In part because he draws relatively uncontested support from more
moderate Democrats while other leading Democrats — including Sanders,
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg —
are competing more among liberal Democrats. Among liberals, too, though,
Biden has a lead.
(Philip Bump/The Washington Post)
He
has much bigger leads among nonwhite Democrats (and Democratic-leaning
independents) and among those without a college degree than with whites
and the college-educated — groups that make up more of Buttigieg’s base
of support.
There’s
an inherent advantage in being a more moderate Democrat, particularly
in a field saturated with more liberal ones. CNN asked respondents what
qualities were most important in deciding whom to support in the
primary, and there was significantly more support for a candidate
willing to cross the aisle than one who held more progressive positions.
(Philip Bump/The Washington Post)
But, look: It’s early. It’s a trite observation and one with which you’re familiar. But it’s true, and things change. At this point in 2007, Rudolph W. Giuliani was up 12 points in the Republican primary contest. Hillary Clinton was up nine points.
Why
didn’t they win their parties’ nominations in 2008? Because people’s
opinions shifted. We can see how uncertain the current situation is by
looking at the results of a Post-ABC News poll published over the weekend.
Among those with an opinion in the 2020 race, Biden led in our poll, with Sanders and Buttigieg trailing.
(Philip Bump/The Washington Post)
Our
poll, though, allowed people to offer whatever response they wanted
(which is why Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton got support). We also
allowed people to say they had not yet identified a candidate to
support.
If “no preference” were a candidate, it would be winning the nomination contest by a mile.
(Philip Bump/The Washington Post)
CNN’s poll asked a related question: How likely were respondents to change their minds? About two-thirds said they might do so.
(Philip Bump/The Washington Post)
Of
those who said they would not change their minds, about half were
committed to Biden. A fifth were committed to Sanders, and about 1 in 10
were committed to Warren.
(Philip Bump/The Washington Post)
If Biden does
hold on to about a fifth of the Democratic electorate over the long
term, that’s probably good news for his nomination effort. In a field
nearing two dozen candidates, locking up one-fifth of all the votes
pretty much guarantees winning or contending in most early primary
contests. It’s the Trump 2016 path: Build a core of support and use it
to wait out most opponents.
But as HuffPost’s Ariel Edwards-Levy pointed out
on Monday, people’s certainty should be taken with a grain of salt. In
May 2015, a Fox News poll found that 6 in 10 Republicans said they would
never vote for Donald Trump in the party’s primaries in 2016. It didn’t
turn out that way. But in May 2015, Trump wasn’t even a candidate yet.
Again: Things can change.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Going to be interesting to see how hard the other candidates will go after him.
So this is very interesting. A few have taken a jab, namely Warren and Sanders. More to the point, as we've seen on reposts here, it's Bernie's political assassins that have been doing the dirty work. They post out of context information. Fortunately, they generally preach to the converted, but we shall see if it bleeds into the 'mainstream' media.
Hmmm I wonder who Bernie supporters remind me of.....
There are some similarities at the 'bro' level.
So Bernie and Warren have already broken the 'Indivisible Pledge' . Bernie was the first to sign, probably because of short memories of his 2016 attitude in the primaries. Bernie and his fans can't help demonizing anyone who isn't Bernie. Warren has a stellar policy knowledge base and is extremely engaging, but as part ot the progressive (not liberal) movement, if you do not believe in progressive policies and how they should be implemented and the quickness in which they should occur, then you are wrong and bad and need to be called out. It is much like the Far Right wing of the Repub party. They are absolutists and loud and condescending.
Dems are a big tent party and though the far left progressives may have some good ideas, they need to listen to people who do not have the same view as they do. Passion is great; dismissal of other ideas is not. Just because you are the loudest faction of the party doesn't mean that you don't need to work with Liberals, Moderates and Conservatives. They are just as important and are suited to the areas they represent. Healthcare is foremost in most Americans minds. A consensus can be made with this within the party that can be a winner with the country. Unless Dems are going to be trashing each other, doing Trump's work for him.
If you want to be President, then getting rid of Trump is THE most beneficial change needed for the good of the country. Without that happening, none of your policies mean a damn thing. Trump is the enemy, not your fellow Democratic candidates. So get your shit together Dems. I'm talking to you progressives, stop with the damn purity tests.
Stop with the damn purity tests is right... and don't judge people today on what they voted for 35 years ago. Listen to what they are saying today. Neither Biden or Sanders has ever given us a reason to think they are liars.
My biggest issue with Biden is that he is old as dirt (as is Trump). He would be 78 if he takes office and could potentially be 86 when he leaves. My money (and more importantly the money of donors) is on Beto as VP pick, especially with Texas as a potential upset. Super white dude ticket though.
Well, not that I want Biden to win, but one of the most revered SCOTUS judges in the history of the country is 86 right now, and everyone seems to have complete faith in her mental faculties, and everyone who doesn't want the SCOTUS to go super right wing partisan is praying for her to stay healthy until Trump is out of office, so I have no issue with Biden's age, assuming his mind stays healthy. There is no reason to think it wouldn't. Many people stay super sharp throughout their senior years, and Biden seems to be perfectly fine in that context.
No reason to think? The average American male is dead at 78.
Good on RBG, but that could change in a week or a month...
No reason to think that in terms of Biden specifically is what I meant.
If he isn't slipping now, he probably never will, frankly. When seniors
go soft in the head, it tends to start earlier than that. He is vibrant,
energetic, and seems pretty damn sharp to me. I mean, a 50 or 60 or 70
year old could also have a stroke or heart attack and drop dead too. I
personally think that is someone of any age is in good health and has
all their mental faculties, it is really ageist and unfair to disqualify
them until there is an actual reason to. Biden is only 4 years older
than the current POTUS and clearly in better shape, and I don't even
hear Trump haters complaining about him being too old for the job.
"If he isn't slipping now, he probably never will, frankly."
What is that based on? Haven't you ever known anyone who was as sharp as a tack...until they weren't?
"I mean, a 50 or 60 or 70
year old could also have a stroke or heart attack and drop dead too."
Of course but I am willing to bet the numbers overwhelmingly support people getting sick in such a way at 75+ than 50, 60, or even 70-75.
(Not willing to do the legwork on a common sense conclusion -- but if we bet on it, I would spend the time researching. )
"I
personally think that is someone of any age is in good health and has
all their mental faculties, it is really ageist and unfair to disqualify
them until there is an actual reason to"
I know you are coming from the right place in stating this....but do you really mean it?
If someone was 90, it would be ageist and unfair to disqualify them? At some point we need to park the political correctly bus and be honest enough to take things to logical conclusions. I get that we do not officially dq them...but who in the heck would vote for them?
If the average age of death for a man in the USA is 78, then it certainly if fair to have it be a consideration when looking at a 4 year commitment to the most high profile, and one of the most demanding, jobs in the country.
"Biden is only 4 years older
than the current POTUS and clearly in better shape, and I don't even
hear Trump haters complaining about him being too old for the job."
Let me help you there. Donny is too old for the job.
All of this stated, I will still vote for Old Joe if he is the option to defeat Daffy Donny.
(I am guessing Trump will not refer to JB as 'Old Joe' since he is 72.
I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.
If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.
And, I will still vote for him. (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)
I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.
If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.
And, I will still vote for him. (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)
that's not being ageist, that's going with factual statistics.
I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.
If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.
And, I will still vote for him. (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)
that's not being ageist, that's going with factual statistics.
Well, ageism is prejudice or discrimination on the grounds of a person's age.....
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.
If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.
And, I will still vote for him. (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)
Well hey, I'm team Warren, and she's a young and vibrant 69, lol.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.
If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.
And, I will still vote for him. (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)
that's not being ageist, that's going with factual statistics.
Well, ageism is prejudice or discrimination on the grounds of a person's age.....
I'm ageist. Most people i know currently in their 70's had severe problems trying to program a VCR in their 50's and view the internet as a magical box controlled by demons. But I think we can all agree that you don't have to be a genius to be POTUS these days. A pulse and being a good liar seem to be the only requirements.
Right now I put excitement level for voting in the next election at a 1.7 / 10 Pee Wee Herman might be getting another vote ...
there's nothing wrong with it crossing your mind that maybe you shouldn't vote for a guy who is going to be pushing 80 when he gets into office. ageism is if you specifically do not vote for him on that one criteria.
I'm ageist. Most people i know currently in their 70's had severe problems trying to program a VCR in their 50's and view the internet as a magical box controlled by demons. But I think we can all agree that you don't have to be a genius to be POTUS these days. A pulse and being a good liar seem to be the only requirements.
Right now I put excitement level for voting in the next election at a 1.7 / 10 Pee Wee Herman might be getting another vote ...
You voted for Pee Wee as a write in? I voted for Gary Johnson. Pee Wee would have done a better job
Overall I’m not a big fan of electing those who are in their 70s but I do think you need to understand that average age of death is a terrible way to try to weed out which individuals are likely to die or be incapacitated in the next four year period. As an average, it is heavily weighted by mortality and morbidity due to lifestyle issues like smoking. If someone doesn’t have a raft of negative prognosticators when they reach the age of 70, then their odds of living into their 90s are probably better than many of us posting here today.
(With the exception of me - two grandparents died after the age of 95 and one at 104 )
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.
If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.
And, I will still vote for him. (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)
You're not being agist, you're being factual. Like it or not, and sorry for being callous here, but the older you get, the closer you are to death (on average). It's not agist to mitigate risk by having the conversation about the ramifications of the president potentially falling ill or dying part-way through a term. I think it would be a bad decision to blatantly disregard an important fact (if you believe the president should ideally serve while alive) prior to choosing a candidate.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.
If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.
And, I will still vote for him. (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)
You're not being agist, you're being factual. Like it or not, and sorry for being callous here, but the older you get, the closer you are to death (on average). It's not agist to mitigate risk by having the conversation about the ramifications of the president potentially falling ill or dying part-way through a term. I think it would be a bad decision to blatantly disregard an important fact (if you believe the president should ideally serve while alive) prior to choosing a candidate.
I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.
If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.
And, I will still vote for him. (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)
Well hey, I'm team Warren, and she's a young and vibrant 69, lol.
I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.
If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.
And, I will still vote for him. (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)
Well hey, I'm team Warren, and she's a young and vibrant 69, lol.
I did not know she was 69. She looks great.
Well hold onto your hat - Nancy Pelosi is 79!!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.
If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.
And, I will still vote for him. (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)
Well hey, I'm team Warren, and she's a young and vibrant 69, lol.
I did not know she was 69. She looks great.
really? I was going to actually estimate older than that. she looks close to the same as my MIL, and she's 81. My mom is 71 and looks way younger than warren.
I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.
If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.
And, I will still vote for him. (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)
You're not being agist, you're being factual. Like it or not, and sorry for being callous here, but the older you get, the closer you are to death (on average). It's not agist to mitigate risk by having the conversation about the ramifications of the president potentially falling ill or dying part-way through a term. I think it would be a bad decision to blatantly disregard an important fact (if you believe the president should ideally serve while alive) prior to choosing a candidate.
exactly.
It's actually still ageism, lol. Facts don't render ageism moot, sorry. That just isn't how it works. I mean, it's also factual that a pregnant women isn't the best person to hire because she will be less available and will to be away for a long stretch of time soon, and is much more likely to have to call in sick, etc, and is even more likely to die than a non-pregnant person. Those are facts..... It's still considered discrimination to not hire someone just because she's pregnant.
In any case, Presidents can die. That is why their VP selections are important. I'm personally feel fine voting for a great 80 year old candidate, because a great candidate has a great back up with complementary political views in case he drops dead.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.
If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.
And, I will still vote for him. (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)
You're not being agist, you're being factual. Like it or not, and sorry for being callous here, but the older you get, the closer you are to death (on average). It's not agist to mitigate risk by having the conversation about the ramifications of the president potentially falling ill or dying part-way through a term. I think it would be a bad decision to blatantly disregard an important fact (if you believe the president should ideally serve while alive) prior to choosing a candidate.
exactly.
It's actually still ageism, lol. Facts don't render ageism moot, sorry. That just isn't how it works. I mean, it's also factual that a pregnant women isn't the best person to hire because she will be less available and will to be away for a long stretch of time soon, and is much more likely to have to call in sick, etc, and is even more likely to die than a non-pregnant person. Those are facts..... It's still considered discrimination to not hire someone just because she's pregnant.
In any case, Presidents can die. That is why their VP selections are important. I'm personally feel fine voting for a great 80 year old candidate, because a great candidate has a great back up with complementary political views in case he drops dead.
I already stated this very clearly, and benjs alluded to it. it's ageism if that is the only factor, as you stated here. all things being equal, if you don't choose biden because of his age, yes, that's ageism. if it's but one factor you consider, no, it isn't.
Going to be interesting to see how hard the other candidates will go after him.
So this is very interesting. A few have taken a jab, namely Warren and Sanders. More to the point, as we've seen on reposts here, it's Bernie's political assassins that have been doing the dirty work. They post out of context information. Fortunately, they generally preach to the converted, but we shall see if it bleeds into the 'mainstream' media.
Hmmm I wonder who Bernie supporters remind me of.....
There are some similarities at the 'bro' level.
So Bernie and Warren have already broken the 'Indivisible Pledge' . Bernie was the first to sign, probably because of short memories of his 2016 attitude in the primaries. Bernie and his fans can't help demonizing anyone who isn't Bernie. Warren has a stellar policy knowledge base and is extremely engaging, but as part ot the progressive (not liberal) movement, if you do not believe in progressive policies and how they should be implemented and the quickness in which they should occur, then you are wrong and bad and need to be called out. It is much like the Far Right wing of the Repub party. They are absolutists and loud and condescending.
Dems are a big tent party and though the far left progressives may have some good ideas, they need to listen to people who do not have the same view as they do. Passion is great; dismissal of other ideas is not. Just because you are the loudest faction of the party doesn't mean that you don't need to work with Liberals, Moderates and Conservatives. They are just as important and are suited to the areas they represent. Healthcare is foremost in most Americans minds. A consensus can be made with this within the party that can be a winner with the country. Unless Dems are going to be trashing each other, doing Trump's work for him.
If you want to be President, then getting rid of Trump is THE most beneficial change needed for the good of the country. Without that happening, none of your policies mean a damn thing. Trump is the enemy, not your fellow Democratic candidates. So get your shit together Dems. I'm talking to you progressives, stop with the damn purity tests.
If a democrate running in a primary can't handle some criticism in the primary how do you think they will handle the GOP slimefest waiting for them on the other side?
The democratic challengers need to be battle hardened.
I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.
If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.
And, I will still vote for him. (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)
Well hey, I'm team Warren, and she's a young and vibrant 69, lol.
I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.
If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.
And, I will still vote for him. (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)
Well hey, I'm team Warren, and she's a young and vibrant 69, lol.
I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.
If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.
And, I will still vote for him. (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)
Well hey, I'm team Warren, and she's a young and vibrant 69, lol.
I did not know she was 69. She looks great.
Well hold onto your hat - Nancy Pelosi is 79!!
Pelosi sounds and looks like on an old woman with makeup though.
Warren looks just a tad over 50.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Going to be interesting to see how hard the other candidates will go after him.
So this is very interesting. A few have taken a jab, namely Warren and Sanders. More to the point, as we've seen on reposts here, it's Bernie's political assassins that have been doing the dirty work. They post out of context information. Fortunately, they generally preach to the converted, but we shall see if it bleeds into the 'mainstream' media.
Hmmm I wonder who Bernie supporters remind me of.....
There are some similarities at the 'bro' level.
So Bernie and Warren have already broken the 'Indivisible Pledge' . Bernie was the first to sign, probably because of short memories of his 2016 attitude in the primaries. Bernie and his fans can't help demonizing anyone who isn't Bernie. Warren has a stellar policy knowledge base and is extremely engaging, but as part ot the progressive (not liberal) movement, if you do not believe in progressive policies and how they should be implemented and the quickness in which they should occur, then you are wrong and bad and need to be called out. It is much like the Far Right wing of the Repub party. They are absolutists and loud and condescending.
Dems are a big tent party and though the far left progressives may have some good ideas, they need to listen to people who do not have the same view as they do. Passion is great; dismissal of other ideas is not. Just because you are the loudest faction of the party doesn't mean that you don't need to work with Liberals, Moderates and Conservatives. They are just as important and are suited to the areas they represent. Healthcare is foremost in most Americans minds. A consensus can be made with this within the party that can be a winner with the country. Unless Dems are going to be trashing each other, doing Trump's work for him.
If you want to be President, then getting rid of Trump is THE most beneficial change needed for the good of the country. Without that happening, none of your policies mean a damn thing. Trump is the enemy, not your fellow Democratic candidates. So get your shit together Dems. I'm talking to you progressives, stop with the damn purity tests.
If a democrate running in a primary can't handle some criticism in the primary how do you think they will handle the GOP slimefest waiting for them on the other side?
The democratic challengers need to be battle hardened.
Arguing policy is fine, but throwing dirt and bashing each other will damage the nominee while Trump just sits on his golden throne tweeting.
I'm not saying that the nominees can't handle criticism, that's not my reasoning at all. Fight, debate, argue topics and the specifics of how you are going to make it happen, but don't make it personal or disqualifying so that supporters of one candidate can not switch to the nominee if their favorite doesn't make it. There are plenty of topics the press bring up that test the candidate's ability to handle difficult questions.
I think, after 2+ years, the whole damn country is battle hardened.
Since the age issue is out in the open...what would happen if the Democrat nominee dropped dead a week before the election? Can the Dems just appoint somebody? Or does his/her running mate become the nominee for president? I would hope that this scenario has been thought out...
Since the age issue is out in the open...what would happen if the Democrat nominee dropped dead a week before the election? Can the Dems just appoint somebody? Or does his/her running mate become the nominee for president? I would hope that this scenario has been thought out...
I have no clue. The logistics of putting someone else on the ballot are pretty overwhelming. Perhaps technically you can elect a dead person, and then the VP takes over?
Comments
Why Biden is leading — and why that lead should be taken with a grain of salt
Over the last month, following his formal entry into the Democratic presidential primary contest, former vice president Joe Biden surged more than 10 points in polling conducted by CNN and its partner SSRS. His lead in this poll is now twice that of the second-most popular candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), whose numbers dropped slightly. Biden’s support, in fact, is now larger than that of the next four candidates combined.
(Philip Bump/The Washington Post)
Why? In part because he draws relatively uncontested support from more moderate Democrats while other leading Democrats — including Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg — are competing more among liberal Democrats. Among liberals, too, though, Biden has a lead.
(Philip Bump/The Washington Post)
He has much bigger leads among nonwhite Democrats (and Democratic-leaning independents) and among those without a college degree than with whites and the college-educated — groups that make up more of Buttigieg’s base of support.
There’s an inherent advantage in being a more moderate Democrat, particularly in a field saturated with more liberal ones. CNN asked respondents what qualities were most important in deciding whom to support in the primary, and there was significantly more support for a candidate willing to cross the aisle than one who held more progressive positions.
(Philip Bump/The Washington Post)
But, look: It’s early. It’s a trite observation and one with which you’re familiar. But it’s true, and things change. At this point in 2007, Rudolph W. Giuliani was up 12 points in the Republican primary contest. Hillary Clinton was up nine points.
Why didn’t they win their parties’ nominations in 2008? Because people’s opinions shifted. We can see how uncertain the current situation is by looking at the results of a Post-ABC News poll published over the weekend.
Among those with an opinion in the 2020 race, Biden led in our poll, with Sanders and Buttigieg trailing.
(Philip Bump/The Washington Post)
Our poll, though, allowed people to offer whatever response they wanted (which is why Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton got support). We also allowed people to say they had not yet identified a candidate to support.
If “no preference” were a candidate, it would be winning the nomination contest by a mile.
(Philip Bump/The Washington Post)
CNN’s poll asked a related question: How likely were respondents to change their minds? About two-thirds said they might do so.
(Philip Bump/The Washington Post)
Of those who said they would not change their minds, about half were committed to Biden. A fifth were committed to Sanders, and about 1 in 10 were committed to Warren.
(Philip Bump/The Washington Post)
If Biden does hold on to about a fifth of the Democratic electorate over the long term, that’s probably good news for his nomination effort. In a field nearing two dozen candidates, locking up one-fifth of all the votes pretty much guarantees winning or contending in most early primary contests. It’s the Trump 2016 path: Build a core of support and use it to wait out most opponents.
But as HuffPost’s Ariel Edwards-Levy pointed out on Monday, people’s certainty should be taken with a grain of salt. In May 2015, a Fox News poll found that 6 in 10 Republicans said they would never vote for Donald Trump in the party’s primaries in 2016. It didn’t turn out that way. But in May 2015, Trump wasn’t even a candidate yet.
Again: Things can change.
Dems are a big tent party and though the far left progressives may have some good ideas, they need to listen to people who do not have the same view as they do. Passion is great; dismissal of other ideas is not. Just because you are the loudest faction of the party doesn't mean that you don't need to work with Liberals, Moderates and Conservatives. They are just as important and are suited to the areas they represent. Healthcare is foremost in most Americans minds. A consensus can be made with this within the party that can be a winner with the country. Unless Dems are going to be trashing each other, doing Trump's work for him.
If you want to be President, then getting rid of Trump is THE most beneficial change needed for the good of the country. Without that happening, none of your policies mean a damn thing. Trump is the enemy, not your fellow Democratic candidates. So get your shit together Dems. I'm talking to you progressives, stop with the damn purity tests.
https://pledge.indivisible.org/
Three seemingly easy promises.
and don't judge people today on what they voted for 35 years ago. Listen to what they are saying today. Neither Biden or Sanders has ever given us a reason to think they are liars.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
(With the exception of me - two grandparents died after the age of 95 and one at 104
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
The democratic challengers need to be battle hardened.
Warren looks just a tad over 50.
I'm not saying that the nominees can't handle criticism, that's not my reasoning at all. Fight, debate, argue topics and the specifics of how you are going to make it happen, but don't make it personal or disqualifying so that supporters of one candidate can not switch to the nominee if their favorite doesn't make it. There are plenty of topics the press bring up that test the candidate's ability to handle difficult questions.
I think, after 2+ years, the whole damn country is battle hardened.