I can't see any of them swiping at Biden about this whole thing other than maybe a passive aggressive by someone that all, no matter who does it, corruption and cronyism should be denounced and made illegal. Still, I think that question will have almost all of them going after Trump and supporting the impeachment inquiry. It'll be interesting to see if Sanders and Warren continue to team up in these debates. Their pact seems to be tight and this will be the first time that all the major candidates are on stage. If Bernie is going to make a move, he probably needs to start separating himself from Warren and position himself as the more bonafide pregressive.
Biden hasn't really backslid. He's been ranging between 25-30% for the last 3-4 months and it largely just is determined by which polls are the newest. The current set of 5 polls in the RCP average include 4 that have tended to be Biden's worst in the past too, so he's probably in the same basic range he's been in. Warren is certainly surging forward - correlated largely with drops by Sanders and Harris. Ultimately, this race will likely come down to Biden vs Anti-Biden. The Anti-Biden certainly looks like Warren at this point, and the other candidates are running out of time to change that. The more she can consolidate support from Sanders/Harris, the better for her. 2nd tier moderates like Pete, Klobuchar, Booker, etc dropping out would probably help Biden. I suspect Iowa is really close. Warren wins NH. Biden wins SC. Not sure about Nevada (probably Warren; maybe Sanders if he's still relevant by then). But Super Tuesday is a weird mix of states, with some big states like California that could really solidify Warren, but a bunch of Southern states that could work for Biden. Sanders hanging on for a long time probably hurts Warren as well, as it splits that hardcore progressive vote.
Not really sure how you can say that with a straight face. Since May... 2nd quarter fundraising: $21.5M 3rd quarter fundraising: $15.2M Declining in polls, money, and donors.
Look at my 2nd sentence: He's been ranging between 25-30% for the last 3-4 months And then look at the chart you posted in either a narrower or wider view: So he's been in the same 25-30% range since the beginning of the year, except for a short period right after his announcement. But somehow, you decided to cut off the graph and start it during his short spike. And also cut off the timeframes on the bottom that show the timeframes I pointed out - and then ask how *I* can say it with a straightface? Really?
1) I posted the whole chart like 5 or so posts back, so, yeah, if you're assuming some kind of nerfarious intent in leaving off the timestamps that's kind of weird. I know people in here have access to this information (which I have provided in some cases). 2) Biden announced at the end of April. I started the graph at the end of April. I think it is weird to heavily consider polling data or weigh it the same as from before when the person was even running. I don't think it makes any sense to ignore the obvious trend that has emerged just because of very old data points. I think this downward trend will continue.
People tend to get a spike when they announce... You can see his really clearly in the graph. There's no obvious trend. And you don't need to use very old data points, which is why I stated you could look at it from a narrower or wider view. Just not the one random view you picked to show a trend that doesn't exist. He's in the same basic place he was in July, August, and September... The change in the race is that Warren is surging, not that Biden is falling.
This hasn't really happened for everyone (not Warren) or certainly not at the rate it did for Biden. Also, what happens after the "spike" matters (how fast that momentum is lost, or if you're lucky enough, how steady you maintain growth). Matters perhaps more than what took place before the spike IMO. Even if we take your concerns into account, Biden had about a 30% RCP average in the 3 months before he announced. Today he stands around 26%. That's still a 4% slide. When you couple that with the drops in fundraising and donors, it doesn't look great. I think it will get even worse/harder for him now that the whole concept of the "inevitability of Joe" is gone.
Huh... gabbard is still running? Seriously, a rather transparent and (desparate? pathetic?) effort to get some media in advance of the debates?
Yang going in with the most momentum. Gonna be a cake walk for him. Be on the lookout for Pete and Amy going in after him.
All these guys play the same cronyism game the Bidens play, or they hope to, so I think any criticism they might want to give will get stuck in their throats. The one exception could be Bernie Sanders. I can see him taking a shot, especially since it looks like he's waning. I take two things from this larger graph. One, that you're right that he isn't really sliding so badly from his April high. And two, he was never as inevitable as he wanted to make out in April. He got a big bump in April, but it was fleeting, just like Kamala Harris' debate bump was fleeting. What does not look fleeting is the consolidation of support by Warren over time that is not punctuated by any really big jumps or drops, just a gradual build over time, while other candidates stay flat, at best. If Biden was 25-30% in March and still 25-30% in October, he's not on a path to victory.
Unsurprisingly, once a new batch of polls came out, Biden is right back near the top of his range - exactly as predicted. 538 makes the same point about Biden: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/elizabeth-warren-rise-hasnt-come-at-joe-biden-expense/
I agree he's not on a path to victory - but it's not a big problem either. It's a 10 or so person race, and he (and anyone else) was never going to break much beyond the 30% range at this stage. He had the name recognition so he started higher, while Warren has climbed her way there. I'd guess they each have about a 45% chance right now, whereas Biden had the same basic 45% chance a few months ago, while the other 55% was split between 9 people instead of consolidating to Warren. If I'm Biden, I'm not super-concerned with anything that's happened the last 3-4 months. He's made lots of gaffes and come under lots of fire and his support hasn't moved. He's always been running a general election campaign and refused to tack left for the primary, and his strategy is doing exactly what was expected. His strength is that he has no real obvious demographic weaknesses and should finish no worse than 2nd in every state primary or caucus and that's what he's relying on. He's not an energetic campaigner and he doesn't have the grassroots support that drives small donors or anything like that. He's counting on this being a 3-4 candidate race through the first several primaries and coming out as the default choice. Warre's strategy is to become the anti-Biden and consolidate support to catch and ideally surpass Biden by making it a 1 on 1 race. So far, she's also doing that to perfection. If she's able to continue, she'll almost certainly win the nomination - but in that scenario, there is really nothing Biden can do without breaking his brand. He's not going to try to tear her down - that's not really his strategy. He's relying on there being several candidates where he can maintain a plurality, and really relying on Sanders and others going after her to gain back voters. It's very similar to the Trump strategy where Rubio, Cruz, or any number of other people could have won if they could have gotten it to a 1-on-1 race with Trump, because Trump wasn't necessarily most voters' first choice. But as long as they were fractured, Trump was able to keep winning primaries until he became inevitable. Trump was around 22-25% at this point in the race in 2015 and Carson steadily climbed and passed him in November before falling off. Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich all made their runs but couldn't sustain. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e..._republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
I agree. The only thing yet to really be seen is how she handles the pressure of being the front runner. So far Biden has been taking most of the attacks and pressure from Republicans and Trump on one level, and his Democratic rivals on a much smaller scale. But still it was all aimed at him. That is going to start changing and with that will come increased media attention and scrutiny. She might handle it well, but it is a different set of challenges.
He's presently in danger of slipping into 4th in Iowa and 3rd in New Hampshire. Nevada looks OK for now and SC has been in the bag from the get-go, but he can't have such a poor showing out of the gate. I didn't think he would slip like this unless the field started to narrow, and it really hasn't, which is weird. If I'm Biden, I want the field to stay as crowded as possible. He benefits from all the noise, as on average his stronger opponents bite off larger portions of support from fringe candidates that drop than he does. The last thing Biden wants is the field to start coalescing. I thought we would have many, many more candidates bow out by now. I'm surprised we still have 17 candidates, even if some of them are memes. I hope we have some kind of pre-holidays bloodbath where we chop that number in at least half. Then cut it in half again after Iowa perhaps. Otherwise it's starting to look like a contested convention may actually happen, which will be a special level of hell for all of us to endure.
Biden has been the #1 recipient of negative coverage his entire time in this race. Every comment about the polls are about how he is losing his lead, the media is actively pumping up Warren to create a race for the nomination. It's no wonder the race is tightening up, the real story is why he is still leading in the overall post with how many gaffs and negative stories are about him and I will admit him not being a very energizing candidate. I think the far left candidates have a very real ceiling and if Biden gets his VP pick right he can win the nominee because the majority of the party wants that type of candidate. The 1st 2 primaries are custom built for Warren I was surprised Biden had been leading them this far.
100% agree. Biden needs to somehow survive Iowa/NH - he gets stronger after that. But if he does finish 3rd/4th, it would seem that he'd be in a lot of trouble just from a narrative perspective. I definitely didn't see the Pete surge in Iowa - but now I could see him winning Iowa/NH as the moderate's choice, but then I still fail to see what he does with his 0% minority support from there. My assumption has been that Sanders is sort of done, and Warren is the real other contender. But Warren is facing an interesting situation now too - in 2016 with the GOP, each candidate had one surge - and when it petered out, they never recovered. Same happened this year with Kamala Harris. Warren's been falling nationally since the last debate, but still relatively strong and I think OK for now. But if she falls a bit more, I wonder if she can recover. But even in that scenario, I still don't know what happens if Biden finishes 3rd in IA/NH. This is a pretty fascinating race all around. Totally agree. I'm glad Beto left. Harris dropped all of her NH staff, so I suspect she's done after Iowa. Booker, Steyer, Bullock, etc all have to get out. I like Klobuchar, but I don't see a path forward for her, so I think she probably needs to get out as well. Gabbard and Yang seem more like issue candidates that just want to have a voice, so I suspect they stay in for a while at least. But I'd love to see a debate with just the big 4 (maybe 6 with Yang/Harris) so they can actually have some time to speak.
