And then there were ten. Democratic candidates on stage, that is

I think we expect that every election. But I can’t recall too many instances where a serious primary prospect was the VP pick or a serious contender for it. I think Bob Dole was the last big one.

If that’s the goal you’re better off pulling a
Buttigieg. There, but not necessarily too successful in the polls or a threat to anyone. And raising a lot of money. And not nationally visible or charismatic enough to undercut the main candidate. I don’t neccisarily think these are good considerations, but that’s kind of how it works. Assuming our 3-4 major players are Biden, Warren, Sanders and Harris (and increasingly in that order) its vanishingly unlikely we’ll two of those people on the ticket.

I also think if any of the low hanging fruit get the nod. It’ll have more to do with whether they’re in a seat that needs to be held, what demographics they bring to the ticket, fund raising, and whether they have the relevant government experience and connections to make an administration’s agenda happen. Rather than polling percentage, visibility, and whether they’re on a debate stage.

There’s a much better case that she’d win it than for Beto, because she already basically won a state wide race. Maybe she wants to take another run at the governor’s seat? And doesn’t want to be locked into a Senate seat that can’t be given up.

1 Like

That’s the point, we’re talking about non-serious longshot contenders…LIke Biden in 2008. Joe Biden 2008 presidential campaign - Wikipedia
He didn’t become Obama’s running mate because his campaign did particularly well, but because he complimented Obama (Older, more experience at the federal level, and white.) Similarly, I could imagine Corey Booker complimenting Warren. I can’t really imagine Warren accepting the VP nod from Biden, there has been plenty of conflict over Biden’s carrying water for the Credit Card companies. OTOH, GHWBush called Reagan’s trickle-down plan “voodoo economics” when HE was running for the nomination against him, so all things are possible.


Warren 20
Biden 20
Sanders 16
Harris 12
Booker 2
Buttigieg 4
Yang 5
Castro 2
Williamson 1

(That’ss early states, Sanders is stronger in the other states)

Biden is cratering, yes, but he started from a strong position.

1 Like

• Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. - you are welcome to stay until you are embarrassed.

• Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey - we need you in the Senate

• Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind. - go for Gov. or Senate

• Julián Castro, the former housing secretary - go for Senate

• Senator Kamala Harris of California - we need you in the Senate

• Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota - we need you in the Senate

• Former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas -run for Senate

• Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont - YES

• Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts YES

• Andrew Yang, a tech entrepreneur - wtf?


Well Biden is exactly what I was thinking of in terms of other things being more important than presence and performance in the primary.

Biden’s base was whiter, older, and more rural than Obama’s. He had serious congressional experience and pull, and a good fund raising history. And importantly at the time he was considered a gaff prone sorta non-entity unlikely to clash with the nominee on policy. I’m pretty sure he would have at least been on the short list one way or the other, as he’s a pretty savvy pick for VP when you get right down to it.

Those are the two biggest polling averages currently running.

Biden 28.9/27

Sanders 17.1/16

Warren 16.5/18

Numbers are a little lower for Biden and Sanders than they were a few days ago, but only a point or two. Looking at more than isolated polls there’s only the barest indication Biden is “cratering”. That’s right around the 30ish% he’s mostly sat at, barring a big brief spike around his announcement and the first debate. And an even briefer dip after debate 2.

The clearest trend in the most recent polling cycle is Warren catching up to or surpassing Sanders.

That’s national. There’s very limited polling at the sate level right now. But Warren is a heavy from runner in Iowa and apparently doing very well in New Hampshire and Nevada where she has a very large turnout/fundraising operation.

And poll wise I wouldn’t describe less than a third as a strong position. Though he has a big lead in endorsements and big, big fundraising. Both of which are probably harder to get over than his support among voters.

1 Like

Unsurprisingly, Tulsi Gabbard ran straight to the loving arms of Tucker Carlson to complain about how the primary is “rigged” and the DNC is denying the American people their right to choose. As if her polling at around 2% wasn’t the American people telling her they don’t choose her.

Thanks, asshole, very helpful!



It shows more terrible judgment on Gabbard’s part. Sure, Carlson as a so-called populist might praise her for what he spins as an isolationist stance, but as a right-wing populist he’ll be in front waving the flag for whatever war of choice that Il Douche decides to wage against Iran or N. Korea or Mexico or any other country that isn’t majority white and Christian.


We’re still months out from the first contest, so I think ruling anyone out is silly. Bill Clinton only got up to 3% by the time of the Iowa caucus and hadn’t even declared his candidacy at this point


Yeah, it’s so obvious what they’re using her for that only bad faith or low intelligence on her part explains her still dancing with them, and I don’t think she’s dumb. I hope getting on the teevee is worth it to her to offset being used as prop for these fuckers.


I was about to correct you (“but Hillary declared back in April!”) when I caught the pronoun.


Yeah, I think I’ll go edit to clarify.


Yeah given her history, sidling up to Trump and what not I’m gonna run with “bad faith”.

I find the fact that so few people are buying her attempts to sell her self as a progressive pretty encouraging.


First thing that popped into my head

1 Like

Just what the US needs: an egotistcal, handsy, elderly president who confabulates stories and has a very tenuous relationship with things like “fact” and “truth”:


I’m sure there’s going to be a Gabbard fan showing up any moment now, to explain how the real reason people aren’t happy with her is because she’s anti-war…:unamused:


I just assumed my preferred candidate Yang didn’t make it. Sheeeit happy he’s there and ahead of a few more notable people like Tulsi. Maybe I’ll actually throw money at his campaign.

What are you worried about? It’s not like there will be any consequences if the Dem establishment screws up again and nominates Biden. /privileged white cis-het middle-aged male with a stable job and retirement fund living in a prosperous and reliably blue state.


As I said in that other thread, I think Gabbard and Steyer will be back for the debate after this one. And, however one feels about either of them being the actual nominee, this is probably a good thing for the process.

The election is a long way off, history tells us that when the field is big the set of front-runners doesn’t settle down until January or February, and I personally expect that the set of top 4 candidates by then will have at most 2 candidates in common with the current top 4.

Let’s make the list of viable Dem candidates who have NOT gotten corporate and/or billionaire donations. Here goes …

Senator Bernard Sanders.

If you like Senator Warren, fine, but realize that 1) billionaire give her money, and 2) The Orange Grifter will make rhetorical mincemeat of her … she is a policy wonk not a political fighter, as evidenced by her string of unforced (political) errors, like responding to the Orangutan concerning her DNA.