SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[Gandalf]

Its more just depression on my part at how willing many in both wings of the party seem to be to reenact the cluster fuck of 2016. But I think what we're seeing here, again, is that its not just Bernie supporters who are "divisive" (even though they're the ones who are always condemned for it). There are Centrists who are every bit as petty and divisive.

I think that's in part because the Democrats can't agree on why they lost in 2016, and therefore can't really agree yet on how to fix it in time for 2020.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its more just depression on my part at how willing many in both wings of the party seem to be to reenact the cluster fuck of 2016. But I think what we're seeing here, again, is that its not just Bernie supporters who are "divisive" (even though they're the ones who are always condemned for it). There are Centrists who are every bit as petty and divisive.

I think that's in part because the Democrats can't agree on why they lost in 2016, and therefore can't really agree yet on how to fix it in time for 2020.

The problem is complicated by the fact that there are legitimately multiple reasons. It was so close (a few tens of thousands of votes over three key states) that you can say that any one of about half a dozen factors (some just bad timing/chance) could have been the thing that pushed it over the top. Was it that Clinton was a shitty nominee? Yeah. Was it the Greens/Bernie or Bust? Also yes. Was it guys who didn't want a woman President? Yes. Was it Russia? Yes. Was it voter suppression? Yes. Was it the email investigation? Yes. Was it Anthony fucking Weiner texting his little Weiner to minors? Quite possibly. On top of which you have people (both conservatives, and misguided liberals who have been cowed by defeat and Republican propaganda) arguing reasons like "Its because we focussed too much on social justice, and we need to throw women and minorities under the bus and just play to white men". And the argument over how much of Trump's support was an "anti-establishment" backlash driven by anger against economic injustice and oligarchy, and how much of it was Alt. Reich bigotry (personally, I think it was far more the latter, but remember, it was so close that any one thing could have pushed it over the edge).

Ultimately, the most direct cause is the Electoral College, which gave Trump the Presidency against the popular vote.

The trick is sorting out which factors were the most important, and, most crucially, which we can do jack about right now. But the most important thing is to not let it get that close to begin with, which means we need to turn out the vote and maintain a united front. The problem is, all those other disagreements make it almost impossible to maintain that united front.

So we're probably down to another close race, and praying its not quite AS close, and that the dice roll our way this time. At which point, whichever side loses probably uses the close result to allege fraud, refuse to accept the result, and possibly kick off the Second Civil War (admittedly, the Left has far more grounds to fear fraud than the Right).

[The Romulan Republic]

Warren hits 13 percent in new polling, just behind Bernie and solidly ahead of anyone except Bernie and Biden.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... eth-warren

The headlines for the 2020 Democratic primary election polls are still the same — Joe Biden is well ahead of everybody else — but the most interesting trend is the uptick in support for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the first major candidate to announce way back in December.

Warren, who had been lagging with just 4 percent in a March Quinnipiac University poll, reached 13 percent in their latest survey, nearly matching Sen. Bernie Sanders at 16 percent with Biden in the lead at 35 percent.

Looking across multiple polls paints a clearer picture of Biden’s lead — but also the Massachusetts senator’s rise. The former vice president is averaging nearly 40 percent in national primary polls, coming down a bit after a surge upon announcing his own candidacy this month. Sanders has seen his support drop lately while Warren, the rising bronze bar in this Real Clear Politics’s chart of 2020 polling averages over the last several months, has seen a steady uptick.

Warren has withstood the entry of 20-some competitors, and after mediocre polling led to media insinuations she couldn’t sustain a campaign, she still ranks in the top handful of candidates. She has two supremely obvious things in her favor: She’s very well-known and Democratic primary voters like her. Warren has distinguished herself with a very thoroughly prepared policy platform.

She’s positioned herself solidly to the left of the frontrunner Biden and already taken some oblique shots at the former vice president. If the rest of the Dem field comes down to Biden rivals and Biden replacements, as Kyle Kondik at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics is starting to expect it will, Warren is emerging as a top Biden rival. That puts her and Sanders in direct competition, and they do seem to be splitting the progressive wing’s vote.

“The Biden rivals are the candidate who hope to emerge as the main alternative to Biden and who can mobilize the support of younger, more liberal voters,” Kondik said. “The Biden replacements are those who seek to supplant Biden as a candidate who can rally the more moderate/older elements of the party.”

It’s still early, so caveats upon caveats, but voters have started to tune in. And the coming-up-quite soon primary debates give Warren a chance to introduce herself to an even bigger audience.

It’s the simplest thing, really, but at this point, many Democratic voters are still just now beginning to really follow the primary campaign: 44 percent say they’re paying a lot of attention, according to the new Quinnipiac poll, and 34 percent said they were paying “some” attention.

Particularly at this early in the game, name recognition matters. Among the two dozen candidates, Warren is pretty clearly third behind Sanders and Biden in name recognition — and what voters have heard of her, they seem to like. Quinnipiac found 63 percent of Democrats have a favorable opinion of Warren, just 13 percent have an unfavorable opinion, with 23 percent saying they hadn’t heard enough about her.

Warren was better known than Kamala Harris (34 percent haven’t heard enough) and Beto O’Rourke (45 percent) and the rest of the field and she’s quite popular. Morning Consult similarly found her at 57 percent favorable, 16 percent unfavorable and 12 percent never heard of, putting her third in name recognition and favorability behind Biden and Sanders.

“She’s one of the more famous members of the Democratic Senate caucus, and she’s led the way on a number of prominent policy positions in the Democratic field. It’s not surprising that she’s typically among the polling leaders, although far off the lead,” Kondik says. “When and if Biden or Sanders falls off, she could potentially benefit.”

Warren has a clear reason for her candidacy — scaling back corporate power and putting better checks on capitalism while delivering more benefits for middle and lower-income Americans — and a very detailed policy agenda for how she would do it. She has embraced the “I have a plan for that” meme. In Iowa, according to a new 2020 survey from Change Research, Warren had the highest “very favorable” rating of any 2020 Democrat, up at 40 percent, edging out Biden and Sanders.

That’s certainly why people who believe in Warren think she has held on to a steady base of support in a crowded primary.

Let’s not go overboard. The RealClearPolitics average of national primary polls still has Warren as a distant third behind Biden and then Sanders, ahead of a cluster of Harris, Pete Buttigieg and O’Rourke. But she has solidified herself as a stable presence, in an apparent contest with Sanders for more progressive voters.

Warren and Sanders have helped give the left a strong voice in the early 2020 campaign, both leading on big issues (workers’ rights and student debt for Warren, health care for Sanders) for the progressive base. But that also has them splitting those voters.

Morning Consult has found that Warren voters choose Sanders over Biden as their second choice in the primary. Sanders voters actually break solidly for Biden — which might suggest name recognition rather than ideology is a factor in his support — but a solid minority do split for Warren. Quinnipiac somewhat surprisingly found Warren leading Sanders among “very liberal” voters, 30 percent to 22 percent, though sample sizes start to get small at a certain point.

“Warren to me is a Biden rival, in that she hopes to become the main alternative to Biden, or whoever might replace Biden, and she is clearly oriented to his left,” Kondik says. “From that standpoint, she’s in direct competition with Sanders (and others) for that position.”

Warren’s aggressive proposals on issues like student debt might be helping her with black and Hispanic voters, important blocs in the primary race, Tim Malloy, assistant polling director at Quinnipiac, told me. She’s also rolled out policies to address maternal mortality (which disproportionately affects black women), to increase housing supply to bring down rents, and to legalize marijuana. Warren has framed the fight for economic justice and racial justice as intertwined.

She’s quite popular with nonwhite Democratic voters (55 percent favorable, 11 percent unfavorable in the Quinnipiac poll). A BlackPAC survey found that Warren’s favorability increased, from 58 percent to 67 percent, among black voters who are following election news closely, as Vox’s P.R. Lockhart recently noted.

“An aggressive education plan addressing student debt in a substantive way with a particular empathy for the debt burdens faced by minority students may be widening Sen. Warren’s appeal,” Malloy said. “That and the fact that she can throw a haymaker punch from the stump whether at corporate America, tech companies or President [Donald] Trump.”

In Warren’s favor is the good opinion Democratic voters broadly hold of her and the important niche she’s cultivated as the smartest campaign in the race. She’s also hired a lot of top talent in the early primary states.

But she still has to compete with Sanders, who’s also extremely well-known and liked and brings his own very loyal base of followers. Remember, Sanders enjoys far more individual donors than any other Democratic candidate. So he can keep raising money and with his strong polling and the infrastructure he built in 2016, he has every reason to stick in the race for the foreseeable future. Biden vs. Sanders and Warren is a race the latter two ultimately lose.

It’s Biden vs. the field... for now
The Democratic primary is in a holding pattern for now: Biden is well in the lead and then the names behind him keep shuffling, varying from poll to poll, with Sanders usually there in second and Warren just behind him. The primary debates, scheduled to start next month, could start to shake things up, when a national television audience finally gets a chance to see the candidates on stage with each other.

So we wait and see. As the Washington Post’s Dave Weigel reported recently, the other Democratic campaigns are skeptical that Biden’s frontrunner status will last and voters give them good reason to believe that:

Donna Duvall, 70, was still looking for an alternative to Biden, whom she’d seen in Dubuque three weeks earlier, and who left her a little cold.

“He had a nice presentation, but I didn’t feel like it was very energetic and committed,” Duvall said. “I didn’t think he had a lot of specific proposals; I like [Massachusetts Sen.] Elizabeth Warren a lot, and she’s made a lot of specific proposals. I loved Joe as vice president, but I feel like he’s maybe somebody whose time has passed.”

The hopes of 21 Democrats — everyone in the field except Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who are No. 1 and 2 in most polls — lie with voters like Duvall.

That’s why so many candidates have entered the campaign — they don’t believe Biden is a dominant frontrunner, If he falters, it becomes a wide-open race that anybody can win. Sanders’s seemingly limited ceiling for support at the moment will only add to that feeling.

Warren has given herself the chance to emerge from that chaos or to set herself as the most viable alternative to Biden for the Democratic left. Coming in third or fourth in Iowa and New Hampshire with 10 or so percent won’t be good enough — that’s just about where Warren is polling currently in those states. You must hit at least 15 percent to start winning delegates.

But Warren has built a real base of support she can try to build from — something it seems like she’s been doing steadily in recent weeks.

Meanwhile, O'Rourke has joined the ranks of the impeachment advocates:

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke is calling for impeachment proceedings to begin against President Donald Trump, saying the political risks are worth having “accountability and justice” at the highest levels of government.

“It’s not something that I take lightly. It’s an incredibly serious, sober decision that we should take as a country,” O’Rourke said Tuesday during a CNN town hall in Des Moines, Iowa, his first nationally televised event since he declared his candidacy. “If we do nothing because we are afraid of the polls or the politics or the repercussions in the next election, then we will have set a precedent for this country that, in fact, some people because of the position of power and public trust that they hold are above the law.”

Beto O'Rourke: "We should begin impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump. Not something that I take lightly. It's an incredibly serious, sober decision. ... Really the last resort, when every other option has failed us." #CNNTownHall https://cnn.it/2WZqjsj

Several candidates, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), have voiced similar calls for impeachment while others have punted that decision to Congress or voiced hesitation, saying that impeachment would only galvanize Trump’s base.

O’Rourke said he understood why some of his colleagues were reluctant to begin formal proceedings, but if doing so impacted his chances at the White House, so be it.

“I understand the political implications of this, but I think this moment calls for us to look beyond the politics and the polling, and even the next election,” O’Rourke said. “The only way we will get the documents and the facts and the truth to be able to pursue them as far as they go, as high up as they reach, is to compel the testimony, the furnishing of those documents through impeachment proceedings. It is the only way that we’re going to get to the facts necessary to have that accountability and justice.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has so far resisted calls within her party to go down the road of impeachment following the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the 2016 presidential election. But as the Trump administration continues to flout subpoenas and congressional oversight, those requests have only grown more insistent.

Earlier this month, O’Rourke told The Dallas Morning News that for the first time he believed such proceedings should move ahead, saying “no man, regardless of his position, is above the law.”

“We’re finally learning the truth about this president. And yes, there has to be consequences. Yes, there has to be accountability,” he said at the time.

When O’Rourke was a member of Congress, he voted against opening impeachment proceedings twice

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/bet ... 13447c3d66

[The Romulan Republic]

Here's an interesting hypothetical:

Given that the primaries aren't winner-take-all, but that, as noted in the Warren article above, fifteen percent in a state can get you delegates; and given that there are so many people running, how likely is it that we get to the convention with no one having a majority? That might be utterly catastrophic- a bitterly contested nomination on the convention floor. But is there a possibility that if we had Warren, Sanders, and Biden all with a substantial number of delegates, Warren could emerge at the convention as a compromise candidate between Bernie and Biden?

[FaxModem1]

Here's an interesting hypothetical:

Given that the primaries aren't winner-take-all, but that, as noted in the Warren article above, fifteen percent in a state can get you delegates; and given that there are so many people running, how likely is it that we get to the convention with no one having a majority? That might be utterly catastrophic- a bitterly contested nomination on the convention floor. But is there a possibility that if we had Warren, Sanders, and Biden all with a substantial number of delegates, Warren could emerge at the convention as a compromise candidate between Bernie and Biden?

How likely that Beto overtakes her just due to the fact that he both has a penis and is a celebrity darling? As well as making the Centrist Democrats a flutter due to him being much more middle of the road?

[The Romulan Republic]

Beto has been floundering lately. And the Centrists have plenty of candidates to choose from, with Biden being the favorite by far.

We'll see if Beto coming out for impeachment gets a bit more enthusiasm behind him. I think it did a lot for Warren, and particularly to help her outflank Bernie on the Left.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Here's an interesting hypothetical:

Given that the primaries aren't winner-take-all, but that, as noted in the Warren article above, fifteen percent in a state can get you delegates; and given that there are so many people running, how likely is it that we get to the convention with no one having a majority? That might be utterly catastrophic- a bitterly contested nomination on the convention floor. But is there a possibility that if we had Warren, Sanders, and Biden all with a substantial number of delegates, Warren could emerge at the convention as a compromise candidate between Bernie and Biden?

Contested convention? Not tremendously low. Warren as a "compromise candidate"? Damn near zero. Gropin' Joe would get the nomination by a landslide. He's the establishment darling, the one that the corporate overlords would be happy to have. Which means he's likely to get the most endorsements from current Congresscritters and to get the nod if we do have a contested convention.

And then he'll either get crushed by Trump or he'll squeak out a narrow victory and sit and fucking compromise with Republicans because he's a fucking centrist that doesn't give a single fart about most of the groups that the GOP is bent on hurting. He might try and slow down the rate at which vulnerable groups are hurt, but look at his goddamn record and you'll see someone that won't do shit to actually stop the GOP.

[The Romulan Republic]

Here's an interesting hypothetical:

Given that the primaries aren't winner-take-all, but that, as noted in the Warren article above, fifteen percent in a state can get you delegates; and given that there are so many people running, how likely is it that we get to the convention with no one having a majority? That might be utterly catastrophic- a bitterly contested nomination on the convention floor. But is there a possibility that if we had Warren, Sanders, and Biden all with a substantial number of delegates, Warren could emerge at the convention as a compromise candidate between Bernie and Biden?

Contested convention? Not tremendously low. Warren as a "compromise candidate"? Damn near zero. Gropin' Joe would get the nomination by a landslide. He's the establishment darling, the one that the corporate overlords would be happy to have. Which means he's likely to get the most endorsements from current Congresscritters and to get the nod if we do have a contested convention.

What if, as is plausible if current polling trends continue, its a contested convention between Warren, Sanders, and Biden, with each having a significant number of delegates but not a majority? I suppose they might not out of stubborn spite, but the obvious thing to do there would be for the progressive blocks under Bernie and Warren to merge, with one of them taking the nomination, rather than one of them going to Biden.

Probably depends partly on how the top three are ordered though. If Warren is third, then why should the second place candidate give way to her when they can legimiate claim more support? But she's way more likely to work as a compromise candidate than the solidly Centrist Biden, or the notoriously polarizing Bernie. Warren is someone who is tolerable both to a lot of Sanders supporters (more than Biden, anyway), and tolerable to a lot of "establishment" Dems (more than Bernie, anyway). That's my thinking for this scenario.

Its not a likely outcome, maybe, but its far from the most implausible either.

And then he'll either get crushed by Trump or he'll squeak out a narrow victory and sit and fucking compromise with Republicans because he's a fucking centrist that doesn't give a single fart about most of the groups that the GOP is bent on hurting. He might try and slow down the rate at which vulnerable groups are hurt, but look at his goddamn record and you'll see someone that won't do shit to actually stop the GOP.

He might not have much say in the matter, if more and more hard line progressives keep getting elected to Congress. Biden might not be a great President, but he won't be actively despotic to the degree that Trump is, and I have a hard time seeing him regularly vetoing legislation that a Democratic Congress passes that is to the Left of his position (and if he did, he'd probably be primaried in 2024).

Also, for all Biden's faults, it is fair to note that he basically pulled Obama to the Left on gay rights. So that is one group that will probably fair much better under a Biden Presidency, at any rate.

[The Romulan Republic]

On a lighter note... George Takei floats the idea of moving to Tennessee to run for McConnel's Senate seat.

https://www.kentucky.com/news/state/ken ... 85659.html

Could George Takei “live long and prosper” in a new self-advertised role of 2020 challenger to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky’s longtime senator?

Takei, famously known for his role as Lt. Hikaru Sulu in the “Star Trek” franchise, set his sights on McConnell in a tweet Thursday.

“I’m tempted to move to Kentucky just to run against Mitch McConnell,” tweeted Takei, who is also known for his political activism.

In the words of Star Trek Capt. Jean-Luc Picard, some social media users told Takei to “make it so.”

Henry Winkler, known as Fonzie in “Happy Days,” tweeted that Takei has his vote as well. One Twitter user even suggested a “Takei/Winkler 2020” campaign.

Several Kentuckians offered lodging for Takei. Louisville resident James Gregory told the actor he has an extra room and offered“really good fettuccine Alfredo.“

”Wednesday night is family movie night,” Gregory added.

McConnell officially launched his U.S. Senate re-election campaign in April. He does not have a challenger yet.

McConnell has not publicly responded to Takei’s tweet. He could tell Takei his challenge is “highly illogical,” as McConnell has not been unseated since being elected in 1984.

He's probably just joking, but damn I want this to happen. Captain Sulu for Senate, please!

[The Romulan Republic]

Some information on the rules for the first Democratic Primary debates, scheduled for June 26-27:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ ... ne-1344368

A new rule adopted by the Democratic National Committee and NBC News will evenly divide top-tier candidates across two nights in the first Democratic presidential primary debates in June, a move to maintain viewer interest in both events by making sure well-known contenders are on stage both nights.

Democrats getting at least 2 percent support in the polling average will be randomly and evenly split between the two nights, which will each feature 10 candidates, according to the formula obtained by POLITICO. Candidates below that threshold will also be evenly and randomly divided between the two debate lineups.

"The final list of debate participants (after any tie-breaking procedure is executed, if necessary) will be divided into two groups: candidates with a polling average of 2% or above, and those with a polling average below 2%," the rule reads. "Both groups will be randomly divided between Wednesday night and Thursday night, thus ensuring that both groups are represented fairly on each night."

The rule will not keep any two candidates from appearing onstage together. But it will prevent random chance from loading one night with polling leaders and the other night with less well-known presidential candidates. NBC News is the media partner for the first debates on June 26-27.

Eight candidates have a polling average at or above 2 percent right now: Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. With the newly announced rule, four would be guaranteed to appear on the first night, and four would be guaranteed to appear on the second night.

Biden and Sanders, currently occupying first and second place in most polls, will still have a close to 50-50 chance of appearing on the same night — about the same odds they would have under a purely random draw that does not break the field into two groups.

According to a POLITICO analysis, 19 candidates have qualified for the first debates on June 26-27 in Miami: Biden, Booker, Steve Bullock, Buttigieg, Julián Castro, John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, Harris, John Hickenlooper, Jay Inslee, Klobuchar, O’Rourke, Tim Ryan, Sanders, Eric Swalwell, Warren, Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang.

Thirteen of those candidates — Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Gabbard, Harris, Inslee, Klobuchar, O’Rourke, Sanders, Warren, Williamson and Yang — have crossed both thresholds, virtually guaranteeing them a spot in one of the two nights.

“Here’s the bottom line: The DNC doesn’t want a 'kids table.' That’s what they fear,” NBC News political director Chuck Todd said on “The Tony Kornheiser Show,” before the new formula was announced. “The goal is to make sure two nights [both have top-tier candidates], so it isn’t like all the big candidates on one night and all the 1 percenters on one night.”

In 2016, when Republicans also had a large field of presidential candidates, those getting the lowest poll numbers seethed at being relegated to a debate frequently referred to as the “kiddie table” debate because it did not include any of the polling leaders.

[Esquire]

Because when I have an obvious, recent example of a large field doing utterly bizarre things to the primaries, I too like to abdicate all attempts to steer things onto a sane course. You know, like national political organizations are supposed to do.

Oh, wait.

[The Romulan Republic]

Because when I have an obvious, recent example of a large field doing utterly bizarre things to the primaries, I too like to abdicate all attempts to steer things onto a sane course. You know, like national political organizations are supposed to do.

Oh, wait.

I'm not sure what your complaint is, to be honest. I think its a good thing, at least, that they're trying to include a lot of candidates, and ensure that both debates get decent coverage.

[Esquire]

Basically, I want an entirely different political structure, and I was overly sarcastic about it. My dream is that there's a meaningful party platform, party members mostly act basically in concert to further it, and we vote on those, not on who got in a better zinger in a formulaic soundbite-generation competition.

[The Romulan Republic]

Basically, I want an entirely different political structure, and I was overly sarcastic about it. My dream is that there's a meaningful party platform, party members mostly act basically in concert to further it, and we vote on those, not on who got in a better zinger in a formulaic soundbite-generation competition.

The Democrats have a comprehensive party platform, and there's a lot of good stuff in there, even if it isn't perfect.

How well the membership acts to further it varies greatly depending on the individual.

In other news, Bernie Sanders has finally taken some tentative steps towards endorsing impeachment. From his Facebook page today, in response to Mueller's statement this morning:

"Given the reality that we have a president who believes he is above the law, Congress must continue its investigations. If the House Judiciary Committee deems it necessary, I will support their decision to open an impeachment inquiry."

I think he's being a bit disingenuous here, given that the majority of the Judiciary Committee including the Chair already support impeachment or an inquiry, even if they haven't officially voted on it. And given that Mueller said little today that he didn't say in his original report. But its a step in the right direction, and will add yet more pressure to impeach, as well as hopefully getting Bernie's base behind it.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://www.theroot.com/new-survey-says ... 1835063802

Tired of politicians talking at, about, but never to, black people, a bevy of organizations joined to conduct the largest survey of black people in the United States since Reconstruction, entitled More Black than Blue: Politics + Power in the 2019 Black Census.

The Black Census will be the first in a series of reports analyzing the responses of real, authentic on-the-ground African Americans—31,000, in fact. The report was conducted by the Black Futures Lab and published in partnership with Color of Change, Demos, Socioanalítica Research and more than 30 grassroots organizations; it outlines our views and also offers several policy recommendations, including new ideas based on survey responses.

“Candidates at every level, and especially those running for President, are being advised to follow a playbook for reaching black voters that is ineffective, insincere and sometimes even embarrassing. The Black Census shows that the black electorate wants policies that improve our lives, not pandering photo ops at black institutions,” Alicia Garza, principal at the Black Futures Lab and co-founder of Black Lives Matter, said in a press release.

“The winning candidate in this crowded field will show that they care as much about ‘Black’ as they do about ‘Blue,’ by demanding policies that close the social, economic and political gaps that have left black people at the bottom when both Democrats and Republicans are in power,” Garza continued.

In addition to politics, key findings of the report touch on economic disparity and injustice including the fact that 90 percent of respondents say that low wages are “a problem,” including 85 percent who consider it a major problem; that more than three-quarters support increasing taxes on individuals earning $250,000 or more; and that early half (48 percent) report living in a household that lacked enough funds to pay a monthly bill in the last 12 months and 31 percent cut back on food to save money.

The report also touched on criminal (in)justice, which disproportionately targets black communities and included these results:
87 percent of respondents consider police officers killing Black people a problem in the community; additionally, 84 percent say that police officers not being held accountable for their crimes is a problem.

More than half (55 percent) of respondents have personally had a negative interaction with the police at some point, and 28 percent of those describing a negative encounter with police in the last 6 months.

81 percent strongly support Black Lives Matter, which is about the same rating as former President Barack Obama.
73 percent of Black Census respondents believe community-police relations can be improved if police are held accountable for their misconduct.

84 percent support restoring voting rights of formerly incarcerated people while 63 percent strongly support it.

Also, not surprisingly, black people are active and engaged in politics (with 73 percent of respondents report voting in 2016 and a third of respondents also report engaging in other electoral activity, i.e. fundraising, volunteering, and/or canvassing; most respondents (62 percent) have a favorable view of the Democratic Party (compared to just 6 percent with a favorable view of the Republican Party; though 20 percent also have an unfavorable view towards the Democratic Party) but most interestingly to this reporter is that: “Despite the notable level of electoral participation, 52 percent of respondents say politicians do not care about Black people and interests.”

The last fact shows that not much has changed since Kanye West went on one of his first political rants in September 2005.

“A lot of things surprised me about the results, but one thing that was incredibly surprising but it may be obvious, is that politicians don’t care about black people,” Garza told The Root in a phone call Tuesday morning. “Given that the black community is one of the strongest parts of the Democratic party, it was concerning. And you would think that because we are highly engaged, that wouldn’t be the case, but there’s still a very strong feeling that politicians don’t care about the lives or the experiences of black communities.”

Garza said that Black Futures Lab has been in conversation with several campaigns, and is looking forward to continuing the conversation.

Garza also noted in a Tuesday op-ed in the New York Times that they wanted to be sure to engage black people from all walks of life: “We talked with black people who live in cities and in rural areas; black people who were born in the United States and who migrated here; black people who identify as lesbian, gay and bisexual; black people who are transgender and gender-nonconforming; black people who are liberal and conservative; and black people who are currently and formerly incarcerated,” she wrote.

Garza explained that survey conductors went to “barbershops and bars, prisons and professional gatherings to document the diverse, highly active network of Black people who share many policy priorities with Democrats, but have a clear vision for their future that runs even deeper.”

And it don’t stop.

More Black than Blue is the Black Census Project is the first of a series of reports. While it focuses on political engagement and economic and criminal justice issues, the second and third report will focus on gender, including the most pressing issues of the LGBTQ community and millennials.

But first up, politics.

“We really hope that this report is something that campaigns pay attention to, there’s so much at stake in this political moment,” concludes Garza. “No candidate can afford to leave black communities behind.”

Read the entire report (PDF) here.

The article title is obviously misleading- the survey says (among many other things) that a lot of black people feel politicians don't care about them, not that the politicians actually don't. But that quibble aside, this is a very interesting survey that Democrats should pay close attention to.

[The Romulan Republic]

Professor who has predicted the last nine Presidential election results says the Democrats have to impeach Trump to have a chance in 2020:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/politics ... index.html

(CNN)Allan Lichtman doesn't mind swimming against the political tide.

Lichtman, a professor at American University in Washington, DC, was the most prominent voice predicting Donald Trump's victory in the run-up to the 2016 election. When Trump won, it marked the 9th(!) straight presidential election where Lichtman had correctly predicted the Electoral College winner. (That's all the way back to 1984, for you math wizards.)

In short: Lichtman is someone the political world should listen to. So I reached out to him on Tuesday to see what he thought of Trump's current chances at a second term next November.

Here's what he told me:

"Trump wins again in 2020 unless six of 13 key factors turn against him. I have no final verdict yet because much could change during the next year. Currently, the President is down only three keys: Republican losses in the midterm elections, the lack of a foreign policy success, and the president's limited appeal to voters."

Lichtman's prediction system is based on 13 true/false statements about the party that holds the White House. If six or more of the statement are false, the incumbent loses. If less than six are false, the incumbent wins. Simple!

Here are Lichtman's 13 criteria -- via his book "Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House 2016" and as summarized by WaPo's Peter Stevenson:

1. Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the US House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.

2 Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.

3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.

4. Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.

5. Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.

6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.

7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.

8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.

9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.

10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.

12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

Which brings me to the most intriguing -- and outside-the-box -- suggestion from my conversation with Lichtman: He believes Democrats in the House not only should be pushing to impeach Trump, but may need to in order for their nominee to win in 2020.

Again, here's Lichtman:

"Democrats are fundamentally wrong about the politics of impeachment and their prospects for victory in 2020. An impeachment and subsequent trial would cost the president a crucial fourth key -- the scandal key -- just as it cost Democrats that key in 2000. The indictment and trial would also expose him to dropping another key by encouraging a serious challenge to his re-nomination. Other potential negative keys include the emergence of a charismatic Democratic challenger, a significant third-party challenge, a foreign policy disaster, or an election-year recession. Without impeachment, however, Democratic prospects are grim."

Which is VERY counter to the conventional wisdom on impeachment espoused by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrats. Their thinking is that by impeaching Trump, Democrats turn him into a victim -- a role he relishes. And with the Republican-controlled Senate on record as planning to kill any impeachment attempt, most establishment Democrats view the whole thing very, very skeptically.

Of course, that view is informed by the moment -- and the politics of it. Polling suggests most Americans don't support impeachment and already believe Democrats have done enough investigating. Lichtman's 13 factors, on the other hand, don't deal in day-to-day politics or polling. They're based in broad, structural concepts he developed by studying every presidential election from 1860-1980.

Who's right? Who knows! But Lichtman's success in predicting winners means Democrats shouldn't simply ignore his advice on impeachment.

[The Romulan Republic]

Latest polling from Iowa- Biden leads but is losing ground, Bernie appears to be going nowhere, Warren and Buttigieg are rising, O'Rorke is plunging, Bernie/Warren/Buttigieg roughly tied for second, no one but Biden/Bernie/Warren/Buttigieg/Harris really registers:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... -iowa-poll

Just hours before presidential candidates will pitch themselves to Iowa Democratic activists in the first-in-the-nation caucus state, a new poll of likely caucusgoers is rattling the race — and hinting that a formidable front-runner is not as invincible as he might appear.

The Iowa Poll, conducted by veteran pollster Ann Selzer for The Des Moines Register and CNN, found former Vice President Joe Biden leading the Democratic field with 24 percent of the vote.

The race for second place is a statistical tie between Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at 16 percent, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) at 15 percent and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 14 percent.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) is the only other candidate who registers significant support. She clocked in at 7 percent of the vote. Six percent of voters said they were not sure who they would choose on caucus night.

Eight months before voters head to their caucus sites, though, the poll shows movement within a Democratic primary that is still wide open.

Here are six takeaways from the Iowa Poll.

Biden's support is shaky

In December, months before he even entered the race, nearly a third of Iowa voters said they backed Biden. Today, about six weeks after he announced he would run, Biden's support has fallen by a third.

Biden's declining support came even before this week's controversy over his flip-flop on the Hyde Amendment, which came after Selzer began fielding her poll.

In December, 82 percent of Iowa Democratic voters said they saw Biden favorably; this month, that number is down to 72 percent of Democratic voters, a 10-point drop. His unfavorable ratings are up 9 points.

And Biden's backers are less enthusiastic about their chosen candidate than supporters of other candidates. Just 29 percent of Biden's supporters say they are extremely enthusiastic about backing the former vice president. An average of 43 percent of Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg supporters say they are extremely enthusiastic about backing their chosen candidate.

Sanders has a ceiling

Three years ago, Sanders came within a handful of votes of achieving a stunning upset over front-running former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Today, almost every Iowa Democrat has an opinion of Sanders; only 5 percent of likely caucusgoers say they do not know enough about him to have formed an opinion, a lower number than everyone but Biden.

But Sanders also has one of the highest unfavorable numbers among Democratic candidates; a quarter of state Democrats say they view him negatively, about the same percentage as those who see Biden unfavorably.

The dichotomy between Sanders's high name recognition and his relatively low poll numbers suggest Sanders fans from 2016 are looking elsewhere this year — and that the 77-year-old self-avowed democratic socialist has a ceiling through which he cannot break.

As Warren, Buttigieg, Harris and the others introduce themselves to voters and earn more support, they are likely to pull from a population that backed Sanders over Clinton in 2016.

The high unfavorable ratings that Sanders and Biden suffer aren't the worst in the field. More than 4 in 10 Iowa Democrats see New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio unfavorably.

Warren is on a growth trajectory

Selzer is considered one of the most skilled pollsters when it comes to surveying Iowa's electorate. What makes her especially effective is that her surveys consistently illustrate who's on the move, up or down.

And though it is eight months before the caucuses, Warren is the candidate on the move. She has a higher net favorable rating than any other candidate in the field; 71 percent see her favorably, while just 17 percent see her unfavorably. That's a better ratio than Biden, Sanders and Buttigieg.

An equal number of Democratic voters, 61 percent, say they are actively considering or backing Warren and Biden, the highest rates in the field. That's 5 points higher than those who say Sanders is on their ticket and 9 points higher than both Buttigieg and Harris.

Warren has been more aggressive in laying out detailed policy proposals than any other candidate. She has hired more staffers in Iowa than any other candidate, and she has spent more time in Iowa — more than two weeks — than any other front-runner.

In terms of sheer growth, no one has improved more than Buttigieg, who wasn't even included in the December survey. Buttigieg scored just 1 percent support in the March survey, fielded about a week before his first CNN town hall, where he captured the Democratic electorate's attention and vaulted from also-ran to top contender.

The Beto bust?

No one is in a deeper slump than former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas). In December, a month after O'Rourke narrowly lost a spirited challenge to Sen. Ted Cruz (R), 11 percent of Iowa Democrats said he was their first choice, while another 12 percent said he would be their second choice.

In this month's poll, only 2 percent of Iowa Democrats say Beto is their first choice, an 80 percent drop. Just 4 percent say he is their second choice.

The number of Iowa Democrats who say they view him unfavorably stands at 21 percent, almost double the number who said they saw him unfavorably back in December, while his favorable rating — 54 percent — is up only a single point. O'Rourke has held 52 events over 17 days, according to a tracker maintained by The Des Moines Register, but all that hard work isn't paying off.

Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) haven't gained any traction either. In Selzer's March poll, Booker and Klobuchar each claimed 3 percent of the vote; this month, Klobuchar is at 2 percent and Booker is at 1 percent, tied with the likes of former Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.), Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) and tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang (D).

The best news for Booker: He's the second choice candidate for 6 percent of Iowa Democrats, a level of support that puts him in the conversation.

A tough field to poll

What's harder than keeping an Iowa voter on the phone while a pollster reads a list of all two dozen candidates running for the Democratic primary nomination? How about accounting for the two different kinds of elections Democrats will run next February?

The Iowa Democratic Party for the first time plans to hold what it is calling virtual caucuses — events in which voters who can't attend their polling places in person on February 3 can still make their preferences known.

Party rules say those who participate in virtual caucuses will be given the power to decide 10 percent of the delegates allocated during the caucuses, regardless of how many people show up in person or by phone. About 28 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers said they would participate in the virtual caucus, making their votes worth about a third of those who actually show up in person.

That has forced Selzer to ask Iowa Democrats not just who they plan to support but how they plan to participate — and to weight support accordingly.

"Those who say they are likely to choose the virtual option are younger, more moderate, and more likely to be currently registered as 'no party,' which of course they must change to participate in the Democratic Party caucuses. They are also less committed to caucusing than those who say they intend to show up on caucus night," Selzer wrote in an explanation of her methodology.

Biden's support is higher among those who plan to caucus virtually, 33 percent, than those who plan to caucus in person, 23 percent. Buttigieg and Sanders fans disproportionately plan to show up in person. Warren's supporters are about evenly split, while Harris backers are more likely to say they will caucus virtually.

The new virtual caucus, meant to allow more voters to participate in the process, is likely to expand the universe of those who get to make their voices heard — and it's also going to make the process of measuring those voters all the more difficult.

Iowa Poll has clout

The Iowa Poll will be the lead story in tomorrow's Des Moines Register. It is already playing across CNN, the poll's other top sponsor. And it comes just as Iowa Democratic activists head to Cedar Rapids for the state party's annual Hall of Fame dinner, where 19 out of 24 presidential hopefuls will speak.

Selzer's poll will be the talk of the afternoon — so many candidates are speaking that the state party will kick off the event at 2 p.m. Central time. And it won't go unnoticed among state Democrats that the front-runner Biden is the only top contender who won't show up to woo the activist class.

[Elheru Aran]

Latest polling from Iowa- Biden leads but is losing ground, Bernie appears to be going nowhere, Warren and Buttigieg are rising, O'Rorke is plunging, Bernie/Warren/Buttigieg roughly tied for second, no one but Biden/Bernie/Warren/Buttigieg/Harris really registers:

That's not really surprising at this point.

Bernie is a front-runner from the last Democratic Presidential primary; people will remember him.

Biden is the last VP, from a pretty popular President. Again, people will remember him.

Warren is a reasonably charismatic, outspoken, fairly well known Senator. It also helps that she put out a lot of policy fairly quickly, so people have a reasonably decent idea of what she stands for.

Buttigieg... I have to assume he's up there pretty much solely because he's "the gay dude" and thus extremely unusual for a Presidential run. Otherwise, he's pretty run of the mill, he just managed to throw his hat into the ring pretty quickly and start getting his name recognition out there. If he was starting any later than he did, he'd be down there with guys like de Blasio.

Harris, like Warren, is well known (perhaps less so), and a woman of color, which like Buttigieg gets her noticed because it's exceptional.

The rest? A pack of older white guys, from what I last saw. Well, there's Klobuchar, but nobody seems to really care about her, and that eating salad with a comb story kinda paints her as a giant asshole.

I figure as the campaign really develops, Buttigieg is going to drop out eventually-- mayor of South Bend, Indiana just isn't as impressive as a lot of the other credentials out there, and his policy is kinda unimpressive. My money is on a three-way battle between Biden, Bernie and Warren.

[The Romulan Republic]

Latest polling from Iowa- Biden leads but is losing ground, Bernie appears to be going nowhere, Warren and Buttigieg are rising, O'Rorke is plunging, Bernie/Warren/Buttigieg roughly tied for second, no one but Biden/Bernie/Warren/Buttigieg/Harris really registers:

That's not really surprising at this point.

Bernie is a front-runner from the last Democratic Presidential primary; people will remember him.

Biden is the last VP, from a pretty popular President. Again, people will remember him.

Pretty much, yeah.

Warren is a reasonably charismatic, outspoken, fairly well known Senator. It also helps that she put out a lot of policy fairly quickly, so people have a reasonably decent idea of what she stands for.

That's part of it.

I also think it helps that she came out very quickly and strongly for impeachment, which may not be a huge winner with the general electorate right now, but most certainly is with the Democratic base (ie the key primary electorate). I don't think its a coincidence that from what I recall, her sudden rise in the polls dates from around that time, as it allowed her to outflank nearly everyone, including Bernie, to the Left in a very high profile way.

Buttigieg... I have to assume he's up there pretty much solely because he's "the gay dude" and thus extremely unusual for a Presidential run. Otherwise, he's pretty run of the mill, he just managed to throw his hat into the ring pretty quickly and start getting his name recognition out there. If he was starting any later than he did, he'd be down there with guys like de Blasio.

He's also young, has little baggage by virtue of being a newcomer, and from what I've seen of him, has a similar style to Warren's- laying out detailed, policy-based responses.

I'd actually very much like to see Warren/Buttigieg as our final ticket, incidentally.

Harris, like Warren, is well known (perhaps less so), and a woman of color, which like Buttigieg gets her noticed because it's exceptional.

Also got in very early.

The rest? A pack of older white guys, from what I last saw. Well, there's Klobuchar, but nobody seems to really care about her, and that eating salad with a comb story kinda paints her as a giant asshole.

Haven't heard that story.

There's also Corey Booker (African American and a charismatic speaker, but too Centrist perhaps for the current Democratic Primary base), and Andrew Yang (notable for making Basic Income a main part of his platform, and God bless him for it, but a bit of a kook at times, zero political experience, and an unfortunate tendency to attract Alt. Reich supporters on-line, though to his credit he has disavowed them).

I figure as the campaign really develops, Buttigieg is going to drop out eventually-- mayor of South Bend, Indiana just isn't as impressive as a lot of the other credentials out there, and his policy is kinda unimpressive. My money is on a three-way battle between Biden, Bernie and Warren.

Perhaps, but in that case I fear it'll be exactly what I worried would happen if Bernie and Warren both ran- they split the Progressive vote, and a Centrist (Biden) wins the nomination. So I'm hoping (as unlikely as it may be) that either Bernie or Warren is effectively knocked out early on.

[The Romulan Republic]

Democratic candidates went before the California Democratic Convention earlier this month, where the mood was definitely not in favour of the Centrists. Hickenlooper was booed when he condemned socialism, John Delaney was booed when he spoke against universal Medicare, Pelosi was greeted with cries of "Impeach", and Biden skipped it altogether, and was roundly condemned for it:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4465 ... convention

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/ ... -socialism

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... nr-vpx.cnn

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 289268001/

Jesus Joe, could you make your contempt for your own party's base any more obvious? Even from a purely pragmatic perspective, what in God's name makes you think this is a good strategy?

where did you dig up that old fossil?

Edit: Oh, and California fucking matters this primary. They've moved up their primary so that now, instead of coming in after everything's all but decided, they're going to be on Super Tuesday, and given the state's size it could very well be the decisive factor in tipping the race one way or another. So again I ask: what does Joe Biden think he's doing here?

Personal theory (given how long he dilly-dallied before getting in)- Biden was pressured to run, but either consciously or subconsciously doesn't really want to, and is self-sabotaging to throw the primary. He is certainly coming off like a man who's heart isn't really in it any more.

[The Romulan Republic]

Some good news:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... bers-trump

The New York Times just dropped a brutal story reporting that President Trump is instructing his aides to lie about his poor standing in internal polls. And a new poll just made their job much more difficult.

Quinnipiac University has for the first time conducted national head-to-head polls matching up Trump and some of the leading Democratic presidential hopefuls. None of the matchups is good for Trump.

Trump trails all six by between five and 13 points, with Joe Biden holding the biggest advantage and the lesser-known candidates — Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.) and Mayor Pete Buttigieg — holding the smallest leads.

The findings mirror the limited head-to-head polling we’ve seen in some key early states, with Trump trailing by as much as double digits in crucial Michigan and Pennsylvania, and even trailing Biden in Texas (!) in another Quinnipiac poll. Trump also trails in most national head-to-heads, although often not by as much as Quinnipiac indicates.

As with all polling at this early a juncture, it should not be used to predict any outcomes. Things can and will change. Biden, most notably, remains very popular from his time as vice president, and few analysts expect he’ll be able to maintain that for an entire campaign.

But these polls are beginning to paint a pretty unified picture of Trump’s current political standing as the 2020 race lurches to a start, and it’s decidedly not a strong one. And if there’s one thing the last two years have shown us, it’s that Trump’s political standing hasn’t changed much.

The Times reports this has begun to register with Trump, so much that he has instructed aides to pretend the polls don’t say what they do:

After being briefed on a devastating 17-state poll conducted by his campaign pollster, Tony Fabrizio, Mr. Trump told aides to deny that his internal polling showed him trailing Mr. Biden in many of the states he needs to win, even though he is also trailing in public polls from key states like Texas, Michigan and Pennsylvania. And when top-line details of the polling leaked, including numbers showing the president lagging in a cluster of critical Rust Belt states, Mr. Trump instructed aides to say publicly that other data showed him doing well.

As ominous as the general election matchups in the new Quinnipiac poll are some of the other questions it posed. For instance, the vast majority of the country (7 in 10 people) regards the economy as good — a finding that would appear to be Trump’s ace in the hole. But 41 percent say it’s good and also credit Trump for that. Among independents, 6 in 10 either say the economy is not good or that Trump deserves no credit. Thirty-four percent think it’s good, thanks to Trump.

Trump also trails each Democrat among independents by at least 15 points, so even if you think the sample is off in some way, that’s a pretty grim starting point. Trump won independents in 2016, according to exit polls, by four points. He trails Biden among them by 30 points.

Trump was asked about the Times report and his standing in the poll shortly before the Quinnipiac poll dropped Tuesday, and all he could muster is that there is a Rasmussen poll showing him at 50 percent approval. Rasmussen has frequently been Trump’s best poll, with no other pollster consistently mirroring its numbers.

Asked whether he instructed aides to lie about the polls, Trump said: “I never do. My poll numbers are great. The amazing thing is all I do is get hit by this phony witch hunt.”

He went on to decry the public polls showing him trailing as “fake polls” that are meant to suppress votes, which isn’t how push-polling works. (There is no sense in suppressing votes 17 months before an election.)

What’s clear is that Trump was worried about his polls before Tuesday, and now he must be even more worried. It’s beginning to appear that if the Democrats can avoid their candidate being torn apart by the primary process and then Trump, they’re in a really good position to start.

[The Romulan Republic]

Warren has bypassed Sanders in two polls, one national and one Nevada-specific (Nevada is the third primary state to vote):

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/ ... ls-1362107

Elizabeth Warren leaped ahead of Bernie Sanders into second place in a pair of Democratic presidential primary polls released Wednesday.

Warren has overtaken Sanders nationally, according to a new Economist/YouGov poll, which puts the Massachusetts senator ahead of her Vermont counterpart 16 percent to 12 percent. Former Vice President Joe Biden still leads all contenders with 26 percent support.

Warren also polls ahead of Sanders in Nevada, where Democrats will caucus next February after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. Biden leads the first Monmouth poll of likely Democratic caucusgoers in Nevada with 36 percent support, followed by Warren at 19 percent and Sanders at 13 percent.

“Nevada’s highly unionized service sector workforce may be a good fit for Warren’s policy platform when you look at the Democratic electorates in the four early states,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute. “However, she is nowhere near the top tier in terms of candidate preferences among Latino and black voters, who make up a significant part of the party’s base here.”

National polling averages still show Sanders running significantly ahead of Warren. But Warren’s vote share has generally ticked up over the past month or two amid a flurry of policy rollouts and a strong organizing presence in early voting states.

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

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

While Biden has dominated the centrist lane, Warren and Sanders have competed for the party’s left flank. In the Nevada poll, Biden leads the field with moderate and conservative Democrats (47 percent) and somewhat liberal voters (31 percent). Warren narrowly bests Sanders with very liberal voters, 27 percent to 26 percent, but she outperforms him threefold with somewhat liberal voters, 24 percent to 8 percent.

She also ranks at the top as voters’ second choice, though the margin between Warren, Sanders, Biden and California Sen. Kamala Harris is all within 2 percentage points.

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

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

The Economist/YouGov survey of 1,500 adults was conducted June 9-11. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points. Monmouth’s Nevada poll of 370 likely caucusgoers was conducted June 6-11. Its margin of error is plus or minus 5.1 percentage points.

In a strange way, I feel like this is a vindication of Sanders and his base, as Warren eating into his support suggests that, contrary to the narrative of Sanders' support being just a bunch of misogynist "Bernie Bros", a lot of Sanders supporters are actually quite happy to jump ship for a female candidate- if she's got strong progressive economic policy. But yeah, Warren is now clearly emerging as the main challenger to Biden, and the same smears as were used on Bernie in 2016 won't work so well on her. She's also benefited by getting in early, already having a fairly strong national reputation, and having lots of time to build up support- I think she can give Handsey Joe a real run for his money.

[The Romulan Republic]

Slate of candidates who made the cut for the first round of Democratic debates announced:

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/13/73043221 ... contenders

The Democratic National Committee announced Thursday the list of presidential candidates who will take the stage at the first primary debates, on June 26 and 27.

To accommodate the massive field of candidates, the debates will be spread over two nights, with 10 candidates taking the stage for each two-hour debate.

Here are the candidates who the DNC said have made the cut, in alphabetical order:

Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet
Former Vice President Joe Biden*
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker*
South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg*
Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro*
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio
Former Maryland Rep. John Delaney
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard*
New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand*
California Sen. Kamala Harris*
Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee*
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar*
Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke*
Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders*
California Rep. Eric Swalwell
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren*
Writer and spiritual guru Marianne Williamson*
Entrepreneur Andrew Yang*
In order to qualify, all candidates had to hit either a fundraising or a polling threshold. For fundraising, candidates had to have at least 65,000 donors and at least 200 donors in each of 20 states. For polling, candidates had to garner at least 1% support in at least three national or early-state polls.

Article continues after sponsor message

Candidates marked with an asterisk (*) above met both thresholds according to the DNC.

On Friday, the DNC is set to announce which 10 candidates will take the stage on each night of the debates on June 26 and 27.

Of the 23 major candidates in the race, three did not make the first debate: Montana Gov. Steve Bullock; Miramar, Fla., Mayor Wayne Messam; and Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton.

[Gandalf]

Fuck that's a lot of people. How many actually think they're in with a shot, and how many just want their name in the papers?

[The Romulan Republic]

Fuck that's a lot of people. How many actually think they're in with a shot, and how many just want their name in the papers?

Or are building name recognition for next time, or are angling for the VP spot or a cabinet posting. But yeah, its enough that they've split the first debate into two rounds, on the 26th and 27th, with a mix of high and low profile candidates in each debate.

Right now it looks like their are five or so fairly serious contenders: Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, and maybe Harris.