The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread, Part 3

[Zaybay]

Gabbard was  in New Hampshire today, and was asked about 2020.  She said that she’s “seriously considering” a presidential run, but has no specific decision timeline in mind right now:

https://www.civilbeat.org/2018/12/tulsi-gabbard-for-president-i-am-seriously-considering-it/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gabbard would legit be the worst Dem nominee in years. She's horrific.

Excellent news! She would be forced out of the HI primary if thats the case, depriving her of her house seat. She wouldnt win the presidential primary, and would just be one of the longshots who throw everything away for an iota of a chance.

[Zaybay]

Also, O'Rourke's only hesitation is not wanting to spend so much more time away from his family:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, Beto is obviously running.

Yes, because this is his chance. He may never get a better chance than now.

The interesting part about Beto is that people are actually asking him to run rather than him announcing. Its clear that Harris Gillibrand and Booker have always marked interest. They have a base of supporters but those supporters aren't die hard and don't care that much. The enthusiastic support he gets should help in Iowa.
Btw does anyone have Beto's numbers on African Americans in Texas?

Citation needed.

Even if you are a huge fan of any of them, it's not debatable that nobody gets excited for Booker, Harris, or Gillibrand nearly as much as O'Rourke.

Okay. Citation needed since you didn't give me one. Nobody is a strong word.

Obviously I'm using hyperbole, but fine I'll take the bait. How about the fact that in the Harvard-Harris poll O'Rourke is polling 3/4, only behind people with way more name recognition, despite getting well known on the political scene only a couple months ago?

A poll in December 2018 for primaries that won't start till January 2020? Yeah, I'll pass on buying those. And Beto made waves for himself in the Senate race, doesn't translate to him beating every one else easily in 2020.

That is not what we are talking about! You wanted a citation on there being more energy diehard supporters around Beto O'Rourke compared to Booker/Harris/Gillibrand. The fact that a failed Senate candidate is polling higher then the three people in question, despite them being constantly in the news the past 2 years, shows that not a whole lot of people get energized about them.

I just answered you. I wanted a citation that Kamala doesn't have diehard supporters, and you gave me ONE poll. Not really saying much and doesn't disprove that Kamala has diehard supporters. But judging from your giant and unsightly sig I'm sure you'll dismiss that and go on about how Beto is destined to win.

Obnoxious sig aside, Mohammed (and me too) were obviously using hyperbole. Obviously Harris, Gillibrand, and Booker have die-hard supporters, but the point is that it's hard to argue that any of them have more die-hard support then Beto, due to the cult of personality already around him. Gilly/Harris/Booker just don't have that. I figured you weren't taking SM literally. But I'm gonna shut up about this now because a chain this long is gonna annoy everyone else.

Still, however, his pool of diehard supporters is still rather small(Beto). I think there is only 1 candidate in the race that has diehard supporters in large quantities, and its Sanders.

[Zaybay]

I personally dont think Gillum is seriously thinking he can win the presidential primary. While it has been disclosed in many articles during the gubernatorial election that he is a very ambitious man, I doubt he would preform a suicide run for the presidency. What I see more likely is either:
A. He is planning to run for Al Lawson's house seat
B. He is going to run in the presidential primary, drop out early, and use the hype to run for Al Lawson's seat

Either these, or he doesnt run, but due to his ambition, I doubt it.

[Zaybay]

I love how we're debating which city is the de-facto African American culture capital of the US, meanwhile, Kamala is revolutionizing the Southern Strategy to ensure a nomination.

Never change, fellow Democrats.

Shes basing herself in Atlanta. We dont even know what her plan is or how it will be executed. For all we know, she doesnt win the Black vote. Lets save the revolutionary strategy talk until after we see the nominee.

[Zaybay]

I love how we're debating which city is the de-facto African American culture capital of the US, meanwhile, Kamala is revolutionizing the Southern Strategy to ensure a nomination.

Never change, fellow Democrats.

Shes basing herself in Atlanta. We dont even know what her plan is or how it will be executed. For all we know, she doesnt win the Black vote. Lets save the revolutionary strategy talk until after we see the nominee.

Not that she's revolutionary herself, but that if this is her plan of action - she's revolutionizing the idea of the Southern Strategy; putting a progressive left spin on it.

Obama couldn't pull off Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida in '08.

If Kamala can carry all of the Obama '08 southern states and pick up most of those four by appealing to minorities, that's a huge takeaway from Biden/Beto/Bernie.

Again, my point is that we dont even know:
1. What her strategy is
2. How much of the Black vote she will win
3. If she will be the nominee

For all we know, Biden wins these states due to the Obama legacy, we cannot be certain. Its best just to not make such declarations 1-2 years before they even happen.

[Zaybay]

Kamala's biggest problem at this point is Cory Booker, she can't dominate the South as long as he's in the race. If either one stays in too long then they probably doom each others chances and greatly help Beto and other white progressives.

I think thats a little bit of racist viewpoint to think the African American vote will go to the African American candidate.

Biden could easily take it, Beto could make inroads, and Sanders, in current polling, is winning the AA vote.

While Harris may try to make African Americans her base, I doubt the Deep South African Americans(who vote fundamentally different from Northern African Americans, for some reason) will go uniformly to Booker and Harris.

[Zaybay]

Kamala's biggest problem at this point is Cory Booker, she can't dominate the South as long as he's in the race. If either one stays in too long then they probably doom each others chances and greatly help Beto and other white progressives.

I think thats a little bit of racist viewpoint to think the African American vote will go to the African American candidate.

Biden could easily take it, Beto could make inroads, and Sanders, in current polling, is winning the AA vote.

While Harris may try to make African Americans her base, I doubt the Deep South African Americans(who vote fundamentally different from Northern African Americans, for some reason) will go uniformly to Booker and Harris.

It's not racist it's a fact. Why did Obama win the Black vote in 2008? because he was BLACK it didn't matter anything else. Why did Hillary win the black vote? because she had the support of all the BLACK leaders. Bernie isn't going to win the Black vote. It will go to Biden because he'll have the support of the BLACK establishment.

I mean no. Black republicans don't win the black vote (Tim Scott). Obama won the black vote because he was a fantastic speaker, a fantastic nominee for the democrats, and perhaps in part because of the history he would've made. Unbelievably silly to say he won it because he was black. He was a lot more.

Then why did Hillary win the black vote in the primary? Bernie seemed to have all the qualities you were talking about Obama had. Then Why did Hillary win the black vote?

Sanders did win the Black vote in key states, just not in the Deep South. A deeper analysis:

Contrary to all the narratives about 2016, Bernie's biggest obstacle at the onset of voting with black voters was simple name recognition. PPP released a national poll in February 2016 of likely primary voters, with Bernie having 90% fav/unfav among non-black voters and only 50% among black voters (the remaining 10% and one-half had "no opinion", respectively). The only way this was possible was due to name rec and favorability being stand-ins for one another. At the time, my jaw dropped when this poll was released, and that combined with the SC result a few weeks later told me Sanders had no chance whatsoever: he needed at least 35% of black voters to have a shot, and even that would have required Clinton-08 margins among white voters.

If one assumes that a group of voters has to choose between one candidate with high favorables and universal name recognition and another candidate with only 50% name recognition, then it's a safe bet to assume that the voters who don't know the one candidate are going to vote for the other. As crazy as it may sound, simple math suggests that Sanders likely won a solid majority of black voters who actually had an opinion on him and/or knew who he was.

His biggest obstacle this year, across all racial lines, will be the fact that there are so many candidates for voters to consider.

Or this:

It sounds to me like once again "White Democrats" are speaking about the "Black Community".

Honestly I have no idea how well Bernie will perform among Black Voters in the 2020 DEM-PRES Primary (If he elects to run), but what I do know is that performance among African-American Voters in the 2016 DEM-PRES-PRIM not only improved dramatically in early PRIM states towards later in the '16 DEM PRIM season, but additionally in places like California, it looks like Bernie actually did almost as well as HRC did among AA Voters....

I would not assume that because Bernie performed poorly among AA voters in the Deep South in the '16 DEM Primary, that if he runs in '20 that these results will mirror '16.

Northern AA and Younger AA Voters tended to be much more receptive to Sanders than older voters in the South lands....

We will see see how this all goes down in the 2020 DEM Primaries, but anyone who makes assumptions "A$$ out of Sump" might well be speaking with their head out of their arse, especially considering the rise of Millennial Voters and States like TX and CA shifting their primaries towards March, as opposed to the "South Lands" running the show for DEM-PRIM as it has been since '88 and before.

[Zaybay]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-sexism.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR082Exbw6pzFCKajvZ9sATYBcFwt6H1XKbpVYp_p7a2PKss7ALp9cMla14

Bernie is no longer cool.

Yeah, this hurts the chances of him even running.

I dont get where you see that, considering hes already apologized for it, and he wasnt directly causing this. I mean, I guess it works as an attack, but I dont see how this dissuades Sanders.

[Zaybay]

https://mobile.twitter.com/CBSThisMorning/status/1083321748777590784

and there's major candidate #2.

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/jamespindell/status/1084199866551676929?s=21

Having worked with Liz before this is an amazing hire.

How are anyone remotely related to the Clinton clusterf**k even remotely hirable?

Hill won NH bruh

No, she literally didn't. Winning a state's superdelegates foes not count as winning the state.

I think they were pretty obviously referring to:

Yes

That "win" in NH for Hillary was pretty pathetic, winning the state by a smaller margin than Trump won the Rust Belt states. If Liz was the architect behind Hillary's win in NH, then Warren is surely doomed.

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/jamespindell/status/1084199866551676929?s=21

Having worked with Liz before this is an amazing hire.

How are anyone remotely related to the Clinton clusterf**k even remotely hirable?

Yeah, you'd think the Hillary staffers would be pariahs after their  up in 2016. It's one thing to lose a race, but Hillary was supposed to win in a landslide and due in large part to her campaign's laziness and mismanagement they didn't.

If Biden hasn't started staffing up yet, he's going to struggle to get top talent. I am not sure there are enough top talent staffers for all the candidates running and the longer you wait the more likely you end up with Robby Mook as your Campaign Manager.

And Brown is just an absolute no. We need that Senate seat and he doesn't bring enough to the table to make giving that up worth it especially with his domestic abuse issues in the past.

I mean, Brown is one of the party's strongest possible candidates. The Democrats are NOT winning the Senate back in 2020 anyway, so who cares if it's 52-48 R or 53-47 R? You're stll in the minority. So I really do not get why you're all rejecting Brown over that. Frankly if I were him I'd be tempted to resign the Senate seat just so you'll all stop holding it against him.

They absolutely can. They arent the current favorites, but the GOP isnt in overwhelming favor to hold the chamber. It just takes a net of 3, along with the presidency:
Gain CO
Gain ME
Gain AZ
Gain either NC/IA
Lose AL

^
Very doable

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/jamespindell/status/1084199866551676929?s=21

Having worked with Liz before this is an amazing hire.

How are anyone remotely related to the Clinton clusterf**k even remotely hirable?

Yeah, you'd think the Hillary staffers would be pariahs after their  up in 2016. It's one thing to lose a race, but Hillary was supposed to win in a landslide and due in large part to her campaign's laziness and mismanagement they didn't.

If Biden hasn't started staffing up yet, he's going to struggle to get top talent. I am not sure there are enough top talent staffers for all the candidates running and the longer you wait the more likely you end up with Robby Mook as your Campaign Manager.

And Brown is just an absolute no. We need that Senate seat and he doesn't bring enough to the table to make giving that up worth it especially with his domestic abuse issues in the past.

I mean, Brown is one of the party's strongest possible candidates. The Democrats are NOT winning the Senate back in 2020 anyway, so who cares if it's 52-48 R or 53-47 R? You're stll in the minority. So I really do not get why you're all rejecting Brown over that. Frankly if I were him I'd be tempted to resign the Senate seat just so you'll all stop holding it against him.

They absolutely can. They arent the current favorites, but the GOP isnt in overwhelming favor to hold the chamber. It just takes a net of 3, along with the presidency:
Gain CO
Gain ME
Gain AZ
Gain either NC/IA
Lose AL

^
Very doable

That will only happen if 2020 is a landslide imo. CO and AZ are definitely doable (I'd be very surprised if CO doesn't flip), NC isn't impossible but I think Trump will be having a very bad night if he loses NC, and I don't see Tillis losing if Trump doesn't lose NC, and then ME I think is likely R, I think Collins only loses if 2020 is a mega landslide.

This isnt the landslide map, this is just a good D win map(preferably around D+3-4).

-CO and AL should be obvious flips.
-AZ is very doable, considering how terribly unpopular McSally is to start off.
-You would be very correct on Tillis.....if he werent one of the most unpopular senators in the United States. The Ds could very much mount a strong challenge against him and depose him, just as they did for the similarly unpopular Governor in 2016, even while Trump won the state.
-Similar case in ME. It would only be likely R if Collins was insanely popular like she was in the past. She isnt. Her latest approval has her at an even score(starting off the campaign season, thats pretty bad, especially since approvals are more likely to go down as the campaign starts, not up), and thats simply not enough to win ME.

A D landslide would include more seats flipped, such as GA, MT, and possibly even AK and TX. That would be a landslide.

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/jamespindell/status/1084199866551676929?s=21

Having worked with Liz before this is an amazing hire.

How are anyone remotely related to the Clinton clusterf**k even remotely hirable?

Yeah, you'd think the Hillary staffers would be pariahs after their  up in 2016. It's one thing to lose a race, but Hillary was supposed to win in a landslide and due in large part to her campaign's laziness and mismanagement they didn't.

If Biden hasn't started staffing up yet, he's going to struggle to get top talent. I am not sure there are enough top talent staffers for all the candidates running and the longer you wait the more likely you end up with Robby Mook as your Campaign Manager.

And Brown is just an absolute no. We need that Senate seat and he doesn't bring enough to the table to make giving that up worth it especially with his domestic abuse issues in the past.

I mean, Brown is one of the party's strongest possible candidates. The Democrats are NOT winning the Senate back in 2020 anyway, so who cares if it's 52-48 R or 53-47 R? You're stll in the minority. So I really do not get why you're all rejecting Brown over that. Frankly if I were him I'd be tempted to resign the Senate seat just so you'll all stop holding it against him.

They absolutely can. They arent the current favorites, but the GOP isnt in overwhelming favor to hold the chamber. It just takes a net of 3, along with the presidency:
Gain CO
Gain ME
Gain AZ
Gain either NC/IA
Lose AL

^
Very doable

That will only happen if 2020 is a landslide imo. CO and AZ are definitely doable (I'd be very surprised if CO doesn't flip), NC isn't impossible but I think Trump will be having a very bad night if he loses NC, and I don't see Tillis losing if Trump doesn't lose NC, and then ME I think is likely R, I think Collins only loses if 2020 is a mega landslide.

This isnt the landslide map, this is just a good D win map(preferably around D+3-4).

-CO and AL should be obvious flips.
-AZ is very doable, considering how terribly unpopular McSally is to start off.
-You would be very correct on Tillis.....if he werent one of the most unpopular senators in the United States. The Ds could very much mount a strong challenge against him and depose him, just as they did for the similarly unpopular Governor in 2016, even while Trump won the state.
-Similar case in ME. It would only be likely R if Collins was insanely popular like she was in the past. She isnt. Her latest approval has her at an even score(starting off the campaign season, thats pretty bad, especially since approvals are more likely to go down as the campaign starts, not up), and thats simply not enough to win ME.

A D landslide would include more seats flipped, such as GA, MT, and possibly even AK and TX. That would be a landslide.

Democrats are clearly the underdog for the 2020 senatorial election (the same way republicans are the underdog in the fight for the house), NC is six to seven points more republican than the rest of the country, so Lechasseur is right, it would require a democratic landslide in order to win it at the presidential level, concerning Tillis, he is not more unpopular than Burr at that time in 2015, so it’s doubtful that he loses while Trump wins the state, besides as we saw in 2014, he is a though campaigner, as for Collins, you should note that her approval numbers are still positive in a PPP poll which speaks for itself, if PPP has Collins at +2, her numbers are probably close to something like +15, she can be defeated but it won’t be easy for democrats.

GA and TX  will be close to impossible to win for democrats, democrats failed to win even one statewide race in both states in 2018 despite the fact this midterm election was the most favorable to them since 1974, Abrams is a basically a communist and she will get destroyed again in rural areas and exurbs and she won’t be able to compensate those heavy losses in the Atlanta metro, as for Cornyn, he is probaly relatively safe no matter who democrats nominate. The idea that MT and AK will be competitive is just ridiculous even in the case of a democratic landslide.

There are so many leaps in logic and failures to understand how elections work that I could spend an our dissecting them in this thread. But this is for 2020 tea leaves. Ill make a thread about this in the Congressional tab though.

[Zaybay]

I like how so many people here are opposed to Brown seeking the Presidency instead of keeping his seat in Ohio, but no-one is complaining about the idea of the Democrats' best candidate in Texas running for President and not the Senate. Not inconsistent at all...

[Zaybay]

Harris is running and gross lefties are already spreading about her investing in private prisons. Bernie people really do wanna have Trump win a second term huh?

Now i know how bad Beto fans must feel. I know I was VERY suspicious of him but now not so much. I mean Kamala is my first choice but Beto is now my second choice due to how horrible ☭ twitter lied about him.

How dare people criticize candidates who did bad things?

So much this. No one is safe from criticism, and the whole point of the primary is to air these disputes and to let the voters decide. Stop acting like every revelation will lead to a Trump victory.

[Zaybay]

So much this. No one is safe from criticism, and the whole point of the primary is to air these disputes and to let the voters decide. Stop acting like every revelation will lead to a Trump victory.

Everytime someone has a valid criticism about Bernie we are told that that's not what he meant, we didn't see what we saw, we heard it wrong, or we have Bernie Derangement Syndrome....

Oh Please, if one were to actually watch the 2016 primary unfold, one would see that many stances Sanders had, such as on guns, were heavily criticized. Saying he was treated like someone special is pure historical revisionism.

Seriously, no one is safe from criticism, not Sanders, not Harris, not Beto, and not Biden. Thats literally the whole point of holding a primary.

[Zaybay]

So much this. No one is safe from criticism, and the whole point of the primary is to air these disputes and to let the voters decide. Stop acting like every revelation will lead to a Trump victory.

Everytime someone has a valid criticism about Bernie we are told that that's not what he meant, we didn't see what we saw, we heard it wrong, or we have Bernie Derangement Syndrome....

Oh Please, if one were to actually watch the 2016 primary unfold, one would see that many stances Sanders had, such as on guns, were heavily criticized. Saying he was treated like someone special is pure historical revisionism.

Seriously, no one is safe from criticism, not Sanders, not Harris, not Beto, and not Biden. Thats literally the whole point of holding a primary.

He was treated with kid gloves by the media and Hillary's campaign because his cultists acted like cry babies and perpetuated that the media was in the tank for Hillary (even though she recieved the most negative press of ALL the candidates). I hope Sanders runs so we can finally skewer his problematic record and infeasible plans.

This is great historical revisionism. Sanders received negative coverage, and while you can argue(without actual information to back yourself up, I might add) that it was less than Clinton, it was still negative:


This idea that Sanders wasnt attacked in the 2016 primary is garbage, plain and simple.

[Zaybay]

I think the difference between a lot of the Sanders critics and his supporters who criticize literally everyone else is that the former would do the responsible thing and vote for him in the general if it came to that whereas the latter group has proven to be irresponsible, self-righteous, and destructive when not given everything it wants.

I mean, the "Sanders Supporters who criticize literally everyone" voted for Clinton by a margin of 91-9, much better than the ratio for Clinton voters in 2008(73-27) and Trump(88-12). So the latter group proved that they are willing to do the responsible thing and vote for the Democrat in the general, while the former hasnt proven themselves at all yet.

[Zaybay]

I mean, the "Sanders Supporters who criticize literally everyone" voted for Clinton by a margin of 91-9, much better than the ratio for Clinton voters in 2008(73-27) and Trump(88-12). So the latter group proved that they are willing to do the responsible thing and vote for the Democrat in the general, while the former hasnt proven themselves at all yet.

This is very disingenuous. The Clinton 2008 coalition is not the Clinton 2016 coalition.

What are you talking about? Everything I said is true. The Clinton 2016 coalition never had to vote for Sanders, so they havent proven themselves, while the Sanders 2016 coalition did prove themselves, especially when compared to historical defections.

[Zaybay]

I mean, the "Sanders Supporters who criticize literally everyone" voted for Clinton by a margin of 91-9, much better than the ratio for Clinton voters in 2008(73-27) and Trump(88-12). So the latter group proved that they are willing to do the responsible thing and vote for the Democrat in the general, while the former hasnt proven themselves at all yet.

This is very disingenuous. The Clinton 2008 coalition is not the Clinton 2016 coalition.

What are you talking about? Everything I said is true. The Clinton 2016 coalition never had to vote for Sanders, so they havent proven themselves, while the Sanders 2016 coalition did prove themselves, especially when compared to historical defections.

Even so, you brought up Clinton 2008 knowing good and well a significant portion of her coalition were registered Democrats who abandoned the Dems at the federal level years before. Clinton 2016 was much more diverse and significant numbers of working class brown and black people who ALWAYS coalesce behind the nominee even when they ignore their interests.

You are reading way too deeply into this. It was just a recent example from a Democratic Primary that was competitive. And you cant know if they would go for Sanders because, simply put, it didnt happen, he didnt win the nomination. What we do know is that Sanders' coalition did, in fact, coalesce behind Clinton, a much larger percentage than other recent primaries, and that there is no proof that the same would have happened if the roles were reversed. This isnt opinion or speculation, this is just fact.

[Zaybay]

Beto's chance of running dropped on PredictIt fairly significantly today.  Any reason why?

Not sure. If I were to guess, it would be the attention Harris is getting, and the Beto backlash that is starting to form. Then again, it is a betting market, so it could just be market manipulation or some other tiny factor that has to do with trade.

[Zaybay]

The social and economic values of the Republican Party have become nothing but ethnic nationalism, one of the worst possible if not the most deplorable "social and economic value" there is, while the social and economic values of the Democratic Party, while not as bad (most of the time), are anything but coherent. Is that a good thing? I don't think so.

You're underselling the coherence of Democratic ideology.  Seriously, what are the major disagreements inside the party at the moment?  Lots of argument about style and tactics, but there's almost complete unanimity on shared goals and objectives. 

Nah, Beet is right on this one. Trust me, wait until the Ds are actually in government, without a common enemy in Trump to oppose.

[Zaybay]

Nah, Beet is right on this one. Trust me, wait until the Ds are actually in government, without a common enemy in Trump to oppose.

I'm genuinely confused by this.  Is there some significant segment of the Democratic party I don't know about that is opposed to delivering universal health coverage, or redistributing wealth downward, or fighting racial/sexual discrimination, or pursuing international cooperation, or protecting the environment, or expanding democratic representation, or on and on?  Again, I know there are disagreements about style and strategy, but it seems to me that the most prominent Democrats in the party are all on the same page when it comes to what the party is trying to accomplish.

Yes, actually. While the D party may be united on broad issues(such as the issues you described), the problem comes when you talk details. Thats always the killer. The GOP, long the more ideologically concise party, had trouble in government when they took power, the Ds will be much worse.

For instance, healthcare. Im pretty sure almost every D would say we need to expand healthcare to individuals. The problem is "How?". At least 1/2 the Ds are in the Medicare for All caucus, but many only support strengthening Obamacare. Then you have the public option to throw in, and it becomes a mess.

While most of the prominent Ds have lined up behind the Progressive side of the party, the 28 Blue Dogs still exist, as do the ideologically diverse New Dem caucus. Even the CPC has its share of moderates who disagree with the party's direction. So while the stars of the party are moving in one direction, the backbenchers, the ones you need to vote for the legislation, still exist, and are still formidable.

[Zaybay]

I meant Ross Perot as some independent candidate who doesn't have much to virtually any chances in the presidential race, and that is why I wrote above "why it is so simple to me". I am assuming that due to the leftward shift in Democratic Party as of 2019 Schultz can end like John Anderson, even worse than Perot.

Im pretty sure Schultz wont take away that much from Republicans to become a John Anderson. Most likely, Schultz takes away 3%, 1% from Ds, 2% from Rs, or something like that.

[Zaybay]

According to my source (I wrote a few posts like this in this thread with informations about Democratic primaries) there is some kind of infighting between Sanders and Warren about staffers, donors, money,  or simply who is better candidate of progressive wing in these primaries and whole elections and stuff.

That is not good news for progressives.

How is this bad news? Not only is Warren only getting 5% while Sanders still remains in 2nd with her on the ballot, but I would say its worse for a candidate like Harris to have Booker in the race than Sanders to have Warren in the race.

Also, Im pretty sure most of the field is pretty Progressive.