Does anybody really believe that Biden would be much of an improvement over Trump?
2
I think that Andrew Yang's chances are much higher than what this is currently predicting. And I'm excited to see the results start to come in!
1
The main contenders have impressive credentials. If I were American and a Democrat (as of course I would be), I'd have a hard time choosing.
Perhaps the one who could best stand up to Trump's gibes and insults has the edge.
@Ambrose
That would be either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. (I support Warren.)
2
What’s at Stake in the Iowa Caucuses, "A Republic; if they can keep it"!
1
Where did the Times come up with numbers showing Biden tied with Sanders in Iowa? Real Clear Politics and Nate Silver each show Sanders with a solid lead for the Iowa Polling Average.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html
4
For heavens sake. Why can't you just have all the states vote on one day, choose someone, and just get on with it? It amazes me how you run your nominations and elections, what nonsense. It's no wonder your political system is such a mess.
3
@Flossy Just so you know, the process you're currently witnessing is not the country electing a president, it's the different political parties electing their presidential candidates. Compare this to your own country: how do your political parties decide on who their leaders are? And when does that happen in relation to a national election?
Unlike in the USA, parties in parliamentary countries traditionally choose their leaders long, long before the election (often years). So doing it in the same year as the election makes the process in the USA relatively short in comparison.
Also, in parliamentary countries, the general public usually have zero say in who is chosen to be the leader of a political party. It's done by a very small number of people, at best a few thousand at a party convention, and at worst by a dozen men in a smoke-filled room. (That's also how it used to be in the USA, until about 50 years ago.)
Any political party can of course decide entirely on its own how it wants to choose its leader; it does not have to be a democracy or even an election. On the other hand, I think it's nice that everyone gets a say when the major US political parties select their candidates.
As for spreading out the primary process so that different states vote on different dates, many think this is a good thing, as it forces the candidates to go to every state. However, one detail I would change would be to not reveal the results until all states have voted.
2
@Flossy
And this time, campaigning started in February or March of last year! (Speaking only for myself, I may soon lose interest.)
@Flossy And yours isn't? You have that right-wing PM vacationing and pretending global warming doesn't exist while the country burns.
1
Yikes, is Trump going to call the Democratic Nominee a Socialist and we are expecting to defeat him?
I believe he calls him a communist, but we all know it's Trump
1
What do the electors think is at stake in Iowa? Not Trump’s unpopular re-election. We need to become a real democracy.
1
The ultimate party nominee irrespective of who wins Iowa is the one who gets majority of black votes in southern states. Biden has the advantage. But, black support from southern states have no impact in general election, because those states goes to Republicans. Only four states really matters and they are Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The party should give extra weight in nomination process to those who win those four states.
@Kodali Iowa reflects those four states and is also a swing state with republican state legislature and governor but 3 of 4 congressional reps being democrats. Two republican senators that are extremely unpopular. Iowa was a Obama to trump state as well. It is extremely well informed and engaged.
1
Am I the only one that notices that the endorsees Warren and Klobuchar are centered in this graphic and that Biden and Sanders are off to the far left?
1
@Michael C
No.
It's because it's not a left vs center vs right graph, but an axe going from the highest percentage to the lowest percentage in polling.
Graphs symbolically represent ONE truth: the truth mentioned in the article below. As soon as you read it differently, it doesn't work anymore.
1
@Ana Luisa I understand what the graphic represents. From a graphic design POV, it’s confusing. An infographic should be able to telegraph most of its information without having to read the numbers (let alone the accompanying article). Let’s just say there are clearer ways to communicate that information. Why not a simple bar graph? At any rate, those two candidates should not be the focal point of the graphic.
@Michael C
"At any rate, those two candidates should not be the focal point of the graphic."
Why not, please?
1
Saying that Warren has the "strongest field organization" is misleading. Sure, she has the most field offices, but Sanders is blowing every other candidate out of the water when it comes to numbers (of volunteers, staffers, canvasses, rallies, and more).
6
Want to know what is wrong with the state of government in this country? It begins right here, giving a "caucus" in IOWA the running jump to publicity and donations. Then New Hampshire - there you go representative of the entire nation. Then on to the Electoral Collage and you get the brainless bullies in charge. There has to be a better way!
5
I am so inspired by all the Bernie supporters taking it to The Times in this comment section. Yes!
11
@Middle of the road - They are inspired by the comments. They aren't asking the Times to alter it's reporting. I think labeling Bernie supporters "a cult" is ridiculous. Whether or not you agree with his positions can you not give people the respect to consider that they may be voting for a direction they simply believe in?
1
@Patrick Lovell I admire Bernie's long-standing, articulate, defense of progressive politics. However, I do not think he is a good leader: he is inflexible and divisive. One of the many contributors to Hillary's loss was Bernie's slow and tepid endorsement. Yes, if he's nominated, I will whole-heartedly endorse him because defeating Trump (and electing a Democratic Senate) is imperative for so many things that I believe in. And, I hope, unlike in 2016, Bernie supporters will bury their grudges and get on board for whoever the Democratic candidate is! We have to unite around the candidate and not, as too often happens, shoot ourselves in the foot.
You mentioned Biden's Super Pac money but neglected to mention all the corporate funds flowing to Buttigieg. That's the reason I lost interest in him.
11
@Brown He did start out with much less of his own money than the others, and certainly did not come close to the name recognition as some of the others. He needed money to run his campaign and wasn’t getting a barrage of small donors, I do not see how else he could of kept it going without those big fundraisers. I am caucusing for Pete this evening.
2
@Middle of the road
I'm not a Warren fan.
Sanders is going to crush Iowa, as anyone there on the ground has been saying.
4
@Middle of the road
We'll start panicking, Mr Middle of the Road, you may just have to deal with free college, free healthcare, and a liveable climate very soon. So sorry.
1
@Tyson ,
I live in a socially democratic society and these services are never free, you will pay for them via your taxes, anyone who promises “free” is not being honest with you. But trust me, once you have this you won’t begrudge paying high taxes because you will never want to give them up, most especially universal health care. Good luck to Democrats tonight. May the best person for the task at hand be the right choice, the world is watching.
2
If history repeats as it often does, changing only the names, Biden will win Iowa by about two votes, he will move on to win the nomination, and will be trounced by Trump. It would be the worst thing imaginable for the United States.
24
It is inexplicable to me that Sanders leads Biden, but Warren trails Biden. It's a clear indication that people are not paying attention to policy motivations and prerogatives, but personality-politics.
13
@Brown woman Not necessarily. It just means that the progressives and moderates have each rallied behind one candidate.
3
@Blake
With the 37% who want a progressive candidate still giving 15% to Warren, you cannot possibly conclude that progressives already rallied behind one candidate ...
@Brown woman Warren's excuse for a medicare for all plan says differently. The idea that you could pass a public option, and then in your fourth year in office after all your political capital has been used you could pass a full single payer system during an election is laughable. Sanders plans while ambitious have far more clarity, not to mention Warren's inexcusable foreign policy. I'll pass on the Harvard technocrat.
5
Two things:
1) What are the sources for your poll numbers? Seemingly everywhere except for this site is showing Sanders well ahead, and alone in first. The latest poll I am aware of (Emerson from February 2) has Bernie at 28 against Biden's 21.
2) The imagery for this page is bizarre. Every single candidate is shown near their poll numbers except, again, Sanders - who is randomly clumped in the middle 15% range.
16
If Sanders wins, we need to understand that the NYT will continue to disparage him. Regardless of how the election develops I'm concerned at how the respected media outlets relentlessly nudge the voters.
17
@Eric Jensen
The NYT editorial board has the right to define its own opinion, in editorials.
And whether you like it or not, until now their opinion coincided with the majority of voters, during presidential elections.
So what is your problem, actually ... ?
3
What is the source for the polling results in this story? It is out of line with RealClearPolitics and the FiveThirtyEight results.
11
The word choice used is not neutral. “Sanders is poised to”. No, he’s not. He’s one of many candidates, all equally “poised to”
Do better.
7
It's really weird to lay out the photo with two people sharing a percentage. That's deceptive, misleading and confusing.
I don't think this kind of pre-vote reporting should be allowed. It sways people to vote for the person who's ahead.
8
@Isa
The photo shows Biden and Sanders both sharing the 22% place because ... polls show them both at 22%, for the moment.
That's not "deceptive, misleading and confusing", it's simply a fact ...
As to voting for the person who's ahead: since when should the media avoid showing who's ahead in the polls because by doing so, they would take away citizens' freedom to vote for whomever they want ... ?
3
@Ana Luisa Bernie The frustration I have with the NYT average is that it doesn't take into account the last week of polling (which shows Bernie with a lead of up to 7 points over Biden).
Check out the RealClearPolitics and 538 averages -- you'll see why people are peeved with the averages shown in this article!
1
Warren and Klobuchar being 4th and 5th in the polling.....
with most of the discussions focused on Bernie and Biden.
....
Stop "reasonably" justifying why Warren or Klobuchar is not #1 or #2- and honestly examine the prejudice including your own.
.
Woman can be our president!
6
@Marianne
You mean you believe that Warren are 4th and 5th in the polls today not because of how they organized their campaign, but because they're women ...?
If you want the media to spread that belief as a fact or "reasonable" explanation, what would your arguments be ... ?
@Middle of the road I'm sure women will be delighted to stop the "identity politics" just as soon as men do. Let us know when they're ready ... we've been waiting a long time.
5
@Middle of the road
How about we realize the bias so we can stop identity politics:
from September 2018 Pew Research Center
"Majorities of both men and women say it is easier for men to get top leadership positions in politics and business, but this view is particularly prevalent among women. About three-quarters of women say it is easier for men to get elected to high political offices and to get top executive positions in business (74% each), compared with about six-in-ten men who say the same. Relatively few men or women say it is easier for women to get these positions."
The candidates running in Iowa have invested an average of 60 days in-state. Their expected return is at best 41 delegates out of the 3979 total delegates available.
It would be worth participating if the primary voters in Iowa had an influence on voters in other parts of the country. But do they? Can most Americans even find the place on a map? What kind of return does Iowa really offer on the campaigner’s dollar?
I am not surprised that Mike Bloomberg decided to give the state a miss. Of all the major candidates, he’s in the best position to pay for professional advice, and probably the most focused on getting value for money.
5
That, and the fact he decided to buy his way into the election just recently
4
But, at least, he is competent - as opposed to many of the others
4
@Global Charm
The return that winning Iowa offers is that it creates momentum for the candidate who does. That makes it (much) more likely for him/her to win the next primaries too.
It's because historically, the candidate who wins Iowa, tends to win the primaries altogether.
And the reason by Bloomberg doesn't dare to compete in the first four primaries, is because he wants to avoid losing them, which is extremely likely, taken into account that he entered the race VERY late, and as a consequence, didn't have the time to build a real grassroots movement in Iowa yet. And performing poorly in Iowa would reduce his chances to win other states, as it would create the image of a loser ...
3
The asymmetry is startling. The right wants a Tribal Trumpista State where everyone lives in fear. They are willing to overlook every infraction, enable any crime, make any sacrifice toward this end (gut education, health, justice, environment).
The center left is disengaged. Checking Instagram feeds, creeping and crawling on Facebook, and preening in front of our mirrors is dramatically more involving and compelling. Paying attention, engaging, voting in body politics is too frivolous, vulgar when I have compelling relationships with my cell phone and TV. We now favor setting up open ended plans with others, and then devoting most of our time getting out of said plans - to spend solitary hours on Netflix. Or carefully curating my Instagram feed for maximizing attention. This time around, while I am being herded into the boxcar, center left will be out in droves taking selfies with me in the background, so they could maximum likes on their social media feeds. Of course they will profess later that it was terrible, but they just did not know. I mean, they had no idea. Not at all.
5
@Kalidan
Disengagement may not necessarily be the issue. At one time not long ago I was very much aligned with the left, and proudly voted for Obama in 2008.
But the modern hyperbole (how many times has the word 'historic' been used for things forgotten in about 24 hours?) and increasing tendency towards identity politics alongside political correctness has pushed me very much in the opposite direction.
Clinton received about 3.5 million fewer votes in 2016 than Obama did in 2008. This was in spite of the voting age population, presumably most of which was primarily left leaning, increasing by more than 20,000,000 in the same time frame. So I'm clearly not alone in this.
This is not disengagement driven by 'lesser' interests - it's folks being actively pushed away from the left.
7
@Kalidan I agree that the center left has problems, but those to which you alluded could describe any American, politically-engaged or not, in this country.
The fact is, millions of Americans are disengaged or simply don't care about things that matter. People are utility-maximizing and do, read about, and participate in things that make them happy. I live with an RN who works at the local hospital. Doesn't read the news, doesn't follow politics - her interests are mainly in friends, pop culture, today's over-commercialized music, and yes making sure she ALWAYS looks Instagram-ready whether she's heading out on a date or going to work to deliver babies. Democracy is about We The People, but we are living in the Century of Self. But I digress...
The real problem with the center left is that most of its constituents are those who preach compassion, but who are too concerned with tax and spend changes proposed by progressives. In short, they're selfish. They talk about the need for improved healthcare, education, etc. but won't put their vote where their mouth is.
Come November, should a progressive win the nomination, it's the selfish, status quo mentality of the center left which will hand Trump another 4 years.
7
@Tempest
You are right on target Tempest! The Trump cult does not need to appeal to the broad spectrum of the public but to the narrowest of enthusisastic fearful, evangelicals, and White nationalists who will turn out in droves - the GOP will welcome the progressive non-voters and suppressed voters who sit out the election and thereby will continue to be able to dominate State houses and DC. As Trump said during the 2016 campaign, he could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and not face any consequences. He is fulfilling that promise metaphorically with the impeachment outcome. Without the energy and drive of young progressives actually voting, we will degenerate into a Trumpian autocracy.
3
I don't see why the entire country can't vote for a candidate on the same day. That would be fair. Right now, it's not only unfair but also a circus. It seems like such a torturous spectacle, not for the purpose of selecting the best/most popular candidate, but to give opportunistic stepping stones toward a goal that reflects the machinations of the machine rather than the will of the voters.
And the caucus system itself - good grief. Ridiculous. The only reason I would love to be there is because I have a weakness for quaint, and that's what the caucus is, quaint.
I don't think it will survive much longer. It's time for change.
11
@Margaret
I couldn't agree with you more. Have one Primary Day just like Election Day and may the person with the most votes win.
4
@Margaret. A national primary would be hugely expensive and would reward the establishment candidates with the most money. Having a few early primaries in small states helps even out the field and benefits people with a message and not so much money.
As many people have suggested Iowa and New Hampshire are not the best choices for those small states because they're too rural, too white and too old, but the concept is sound. I hope it will continue with alternative states chosen in the future.
Why oh why do we need to know who the pollsters think will win?
Election polls serve absolutely no purpose other than to create work for polling companies and bookies. But as we've seen over and over, they can affect voter attitudes *and turnout.* This year, they've also contributed to the mess and unfairness of the Democratic debates.
At the very least, as done in some countries, there should be a polling blackout in the days immediately before an election. Our breathless worship of polls in the U.S. is insane.
10
The newest RCP average has Sanders at 24.2 and Biden at 20.2. I am curious to know why the poll average here differs from that (in terms of the point estimates, I don't know whether the confidence interval for the RCP average would allow us to be confident that the two numbers are significantly different). I feel that it should at least be justified in the text, given that the advertised numbers affect reader's perceptions -- esp. in the context of repeated accusations of bias against Sanders by the NYTimes (which are most certainly true, in my own view). More generally, the NYTimes should really include margins of error on these charts -- not doing so fails to communicate something important to the readers, and is an irresponsible way to convey statistical information.
13
@Middle of the road
So...you've got no rebuttal to Eric's factual comment and instead attempt to denigrate him and make a disparaging comment about his possible candidate.
How very Trump like; or is Dem. centrist more applicable?! Either way it does show and say more about you than Eric doesn't it Kettle.
Be better.
4
@Middle of the road
I strongly believe that the accusation of bias, in this case, is based on evidence -- I really do encourage you to look at material written by journalists and social scientists on the matter. I would also want to stress that bias is not necessarily conscious -- it doesn't have to be a consciously-carried-out conspiracy (although, honestly, I would put my money that it is partly conscious on their part). Taking the evidence that there is bias, one could speculate on its cause: class interest, information flow in elite social networks, unintended implicit biases, etc. I think institutions like the NYT do some great reporting -- I want them to "Be better" (@Dobbys sock). I think a lot of the people at the NYT believe they are doing good work, and a lot of it is! One may not like Sanders' "screaming at the press" (I dispute this characterization, strongly -- look at the NYT interview with him, for example -- I don't recall any screaming), but it is extremely important for folks, including him, to point it out! A lot of the worries expressed by people like me boils down to worrying about the fact that people respond to incentives (a claim accessible in the first few pages of any microecon textbook, but routinely lambasted as a possible explanation in contexts like this). Finally, regardless of the politics, the fact that their reporting counters many other polling averages behooves the NYT to justify their presentation -- I don't find this claim controversial.
Interesting that your poll disagrees with poll of poll stats from multiple other sources wherein Bernie is leading by a statistically significant margin and Buttigieg isn't in the top 3, also to a statistically significant degree.
15
What is the basis of this polling average where Biden ahead of Sanders at this point? 538 and RCP both have Sanders as the front-runner in Iowa (RCP by several points). The last Emerson College poll has Sanders up 7 points on Biden; Data for Progress has Sanders up 3 points; Civiqs has Sander's up 7; American Research Group has Sanders up 6.
15
The Iowa caucus that happens every 4 years presidential elections show this each of the candidates, but of any of the candidates, I still go with VPJoe Biden one that can beat Pres. Donald Trump with the home stretch that comes around in October Pres. Donald Trump will marvel economics In the stock market, but if any of these candidates are smart they can go after him in 2016 the coolers air condition company in Wisconsin he promised workers they still have a job 1000 of them but there's only 30 left the jobs went to Mexico. Pres. Donald Trump is so much a liar has a visit that plant in the workers there
how about the Chinese plant that was going to go to Ohio where their workers a promise them 2000 jobs there's only 50.
All the big banks outsource their phone calls overseas, so if you call Chase or Wells Fargo they're all station overseas.
Even Dells' computers, the Apple Store made in China. Those were Pres. Donald Trump's signature of achievement in 2016 lies, lie, lies
so whoever wins, tonight in Iowa caucus it will be a fight to the finish Pres. Donald Trump is tea parties and 30% will claim victory and the Republican Party the sold us down the Congress last Friday. Good luck Joe Biden will see you in November and Iowa is just a barometer of candidates good enough to take on Pres. Donald Trump.
1
Let's hope that Bernie Sanders gets a fair shot at the nomination this time. Bernie is the strongest opponent to trump and he would beat him. We need to take our country back for the people! It has to work for everyone, not just the corporations. It would be comedic if it wasn't so sad how so many publications, commentators, and "real" democrats are trying to take him down, i.e., HRC, John Kerry, etc. Why don't they care about the voters and what they need to have a good life in the USA? Bernie has more Democratic values that the rest of them combined! Go Bernie!
12
Democrats will be good serfs again and choose a candidate who does not threaten to weaken the corporations grip upon our politics. Democrats love them some industrial overlords.
4
Our system is horrible. All this talk of Iowa, New Hampshire, grabbing votes in swing states, and our supposed democracy, and the majority of us are invisible to the candidates. How exciting for them. We don't get any election coverage at all.
2
Right to the very end, the New York Times is making obvious decisions (these aren't missteps) to misrepresent Bernie's momentum. There is no average of any of the latest polling that shows Biden and Bernie neck and neck, much less on any statistical advantage that would support showing Biden to the left of Bernie in the image. Bernie has pulled away big time, most of the polls show it. But inconvenient truths like polling never get in the way of the mainstream media trying to handicap and misrepresent the momentum of the Working Class candidate; and they think Working Class voters are too simple to figure it out.
19
The Times anti-Sanders bias continues to manifest itself. The graph shows Sanders and Biden with 22% each. Yet, the RealClearPolitics average for Iowa shows Sanders polling average as 24.2% and Biden's polling average as 20.2%
Really, please keep your anti-Bernie articles on the editorial page. This sort of article is supposed to be fact-based.
18
@Bob you do understand what a polling average is right?
1
The emphasis on Iowa is ludicrous. In 2024, keep the early states early, but let them all be primaries on the same day.
2
Sorry but I can't take the Iowa caucus results seriously. The biggest reason is that a caucus requires the voter to commit to at least a 3 hour period process at a caucus site. Each voter must participate in running around in a public space gym/auditorium) forming and reforming candidate groups and discussing the various positions of candidates to finally derive the various final candidate groups totals where each must be 15% or greater of the total votes at the caucus site. As a result the caucus voter population is dominated by politically committed and political activists and not the average voter in the general election. Also, Iowa has a small population (3 million) and so maybe a good sample for midwestern states but not a indicator the the nation.
9
@P Locke Yeah, if my candidate was about to get slaughtered by Bernie in Iowa, I would start minimizing its importance as well, pretending it doesn't matter. But everyone knows better than that. No one has ever won Iowa and New Hampshire and lost the primary.
8
I think there should be a 'National Primary Election Day' and all states have their primaries on the same day. Maybe the first Tuesday in May.
The current system stinks!
42
@Bill C
Your opinion makes no difference, neither does mine or anyone else's. There is an oligarchy and an agenda that will be served with some kind of spin that makes it appear to be democracy.
3
And that’s just the Democrats
2
@Bill C
A National Primary Day would be good for people who want money and party insiders to have a bigger effect than they already have on politics. Allowing small states to go first allows candidates with less money to compete and build up their name recognition.
However, it might make sense to let a few (four?) states begin the process. Perhaps, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada could start it off, which would allow different regions to start things off.
Today will be a historic victory for Bernie Sanders. Mark my words, the golden door is open, the lamp is lighted. This is the first step in creating a more just and equitable society.
38
Here in Chicago hoping the young folks in Iowa come out in full. Climate change is the most serious threat and young people know it. There is only one candidate with the strongest plan, with the single hail marry pass and his name is Bernard. Nobody else is even willing to throw the ball.
23
@mempko Except the straw poll for young voters that came out had Yang at the top of young voters - not Bernie. So maybe it will be a Yang victory if all the young people come out.....
3
A new poll puts Sanders well ahead of Biden. Go Bernie!
25
@CS did you read article? Iowa poll average has Buttigieg in the avg margin of error with Biden and Sanders.
One awaits with great impatience the latest news from Iowa. As in the Latin citation, "Out of Iowa (Africa) always something new" or "Ex Iov(u)a semper aliquid novi". As an aside, John Kennedy pronouced it "Iowa-R", and in Latin it would probably be pronounced "Ee-o-v(u)-a".
2
If I was a Dem voter in Iowa, I would be writing in Bloomberg. Sorry, he's the only I feel has a serious nationwide shot at taking down Trump. And Trump is terrified of him. Bloomberg's the real deal and Trump is as phony as a an old Times Square barker.
12
@Clearwater The media always portrays presidential races as close to build dramatic affect and get viewers. In reality, Trump's odds are not very good. He's very hated. He's become his own single issue for the American people. Those who've never cared to vote in their lives are going to go out and vote for any candidate running against him. Turnout will be huge, Democrats won't have any significant third party candidates, and they're probably going to take the trifecta, even if Buttigieg gets the nominee.
5
@Clearwater If I was a Dem voter in Iowa, I would be writing Bernie Sanders. Forget your fear of socialism. Democratic Socialism aims to be the best of both worlds.
I live in a social democracy (Norway) and although we have huge political differences we all agree that democratic socialism as a base works for everybody. In short -
Social Democracy means that your government will strive to bring everybody along and not leave anybody behind. Even the top 1%.
6
@Clearwater Iowa holds a caucus; there is no writing a candidate in. Also Trump is absolutely not terrified of running against a guy who so strongly promotes gun control. He'd welcome it because little riles up his base more than gun control.
1
How difficult would it be for either of the major parties to have more than one state be the first state? Couldn't we easily have three of four states have their primaries on the same day, well before Super Tuesday?
12
The answer to your question is, "Nothing." The guy who is going to win the Democratic nomination and the White House is not competing in Iowa, and doesn't appear in your nice illustration. Your readers know whom I'm talking about.
8
I hope Sanders has a decisive win and silences all the naysayers.
57
@Cee
So, the game will be to see how the oligarchy and the DNC sideline him. Maybe then we will be angry enough to do something about our failing country.
2
What are you guys averaging for these poll numbers? RCP has Sanders at 24.2, Biden at 20.2, Buttigieg 16.4, Waren 15.6. Fivethirtyeight (in their polling average, not prediction) has Sanders at 22.2, Biden 21.0, Buttigieg 15.4, Warren 14.7. Point is that Buttigieg (and a little bit Biden) look overstated without knowing which polls are used. I certainly wouldn't put Biden on the left of Sanders there
52
@Mark H Hi me, I got it. They're double dipping Monmouth. The average includes both the most recent Monmouth poll (January 23rd-27th) and one from January 9-12th. Both polls show Biden with a lead, but a much smaller one in the more recent poll.
A 'better' read would be that Monmouth shows Bernie going up 3 points between their polls, and Biden going down 1.
7
@Mark H Shocking that they would make such a mistake...and that it would have the effect of minimizing the support for Bernie Sanders. Very curious. It's almost enough to make one think that the New York Times is biased against Bernie. Banish the thought!
7
@Mark H
It's understandable that people make mistakes. It's more disturbing that they have been informed of the mistake, and they have chosen not to correct it.
Did you know a provision in the Bankruptcy bill to let people keep money out to buy Christmas gifts was stripped by Biden? The 1.3 trillion in student dept is in large part Biden's doing. The reason our kids are holding off buying homes or having children. He did what he was told to do by his bosses , the credit card industry.
Who is gathering there time money and paid trolls to defeat Sanders?
The Wall Street Banks
The Big Oil
Big Pharma
The For Profit Health Insurance industry
War Profiteering Industry
Lobbyists
Billionaires
If he scares them then I know we have a winner.
The war is coming , who do you stand with? The corporations that want to enslave you and take every cent your family has earned or do you take the blue pill and lets try to make our civilization work for us the people for once.
92
@gene
I have to be honest, I can't stand hyperbole from either side.
Here's the exact text from the bankruptcy bill:
‘‘(ii) expenses for children’s toys and recreation for children of the debtor, tax credits for earned income determined under section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986."
It doesn't say "Christmas gifts" but if you pretend it does you can shoot for the pathos.
This was part of an amendment that was almost two pages long with many subsections and no, it wasn't "stripped" by Biden. 58 Senators voted against it.
My point is, let's have an honest debate. People can come up with valid reasons why they don't want to support Biden and that's fine. But if you start with hyperbole you ultimately fail on all counts and diminish the quality of the debate.
23
@gene The war on our democracy is here and Donald Trump is leading it. I'll vote for whomever the Dems put up. My first choice is Buttigieg, but he'll never take Trump. We've got to be realistic, or we will end up with an autocracy, backed by 51 bobbleheads in the Senate.
4
@gene A question for Gene and for those who liked the comment: what kind of war are you referring to? A literal war with arms, killings, destruction, or some sort of a metaphorical struggle? Sanders candidate for city council in Seattle called it a class war in which everyone must take sides, and won (the same person will be part of a a Bernie party featuring a challenger to Pelos). As someone who grew up through war and who witnessed a relatively functional society descend into bloodshed, I take any mention of war extremely seriously, so if Sander's strategy is a societal change "by any means necessary" that's something that needs to be explored.
1
Reported from Iowa:
An NBC News analyst overheard him [John Kerry] fretting about “the possibility of Bernie Sanders taking down the Democratic Party — down whole.”
This, coming from the guy who lost to Dubya Bush.
29
@Is
We could come up with some pretty strong arguments for the "taking down" of the Democrat Party. We are living in an increasingly failing nation and more of the same will not turn the corner.
6
@Is
Taking down? More like building up.
4
Biden lacks vision and action riding on Obama's legacy
Bernie doesn't play well with others & has an expired sell-by date (Thank you Dem Party Leadership and H. Clinton!!!)
Buttigeig is missing charisma and national identity
Warren is a woman with vision and direction
Klobuchar is "favorite daughter" in the midwest
Yang & Steyer together have not developed have an identity.
Duh!
Warren may not Win in Iowa, but she is the obvious choice to unify the party and bring order to a chaotic federal government.
12
The biggest downside to Sanders is not his socialist label, but the "Bernie or else!" (Trump, no other Dem) dilemma. Sanders' campaign continues to be a progressive Trojan horse for the Democratic party. His minions steer the primaries into internecine war and then abandon nominated candidates and do nothing to support other progressives who aren’t Bernie. This campaign is extorting the nomination.
23
@Steve C Bernie did 39 rallies for Clinton in 2016 and Clinton did like 12 for Obama in 2004. Thoughts?
74
@Steve C Bernie has a young tech savvy army . You want dirt on Trump? They will find it. You want to win? They will march. Want to lose pick Biden.
48
@Steve C as opposed to the Hillary or else?
19
There was a Letter to the Editor recently in the WSJ from a woman working with the Brookings Institute. In it, she remarked that 44% of workers earn a median wage of $10.22, per hour, which belies the fact, all is well in this Trump economy. I suspect this indictment of capitalism has led to a surge in Bernie Sanders and decline of Elizabeth Warren, who proclaims to be an avowed capitalist. Furthermore, she pointed out the age spectrum for these workers was 18-64. And for that purported low inflation rate, someone hasn't examined the rising costs of housing and rent.
31
As a New Yorker, I resent mid western Iowans making decisions for me especially regarding the forthcoming election. I want to see a leveling of the playing field here where all states "caucus" at the same time. Even better, let's move our primaries to January!
48
@Judie New York enjoys all sorts of other influences, so I wouldn't worry too much about primaries. Most of the news we receive comes from either NY or D.C., which can have quite an effect on how it's presented. Also, much of the entertainment world is based in either L.A. or NY, so you've got quite the cultural influence as well. All in all, I wouldn't sweat the primaries when so many other areas are in your corner.
23
@Judie, Don't worry, Judie. The Iowans are just a tool. It is the DNC that is running this Charade. We have no say in this game.
21
@Judie You think New York has it bad? New Jersey is on June 2. It's THE most densely populated state in the country, and our voice in picking the "Democratic" candidate is the smallest.
3
"Michael R. Bloomberg is skipping the first four states and has focused his TV advertising on other states"
It'll be interesting to see how someone can do with a veritable "advertising only" type of campaign. Should he become the nominee, or even make it to the top three, it might change future election campaigning and who decides to get into these things.
15
@Independent Observer Trump keeps looking over his shoulder and who does he see? Mini Mike, looming large. No, even a billionaire can't buy an election, but if he's smart he can hire people who win elections. Apparently when he congratulated Trump in 2016 Bloomberg advised him to hire people smarter than him. Trump's response was nobody was smarter. That's one reason he can beat Trump and a herd of Democrats.
5
@Independent Observer
Bloomberg's campaign is not "advertising only" campaign. He has been making dozens and dozens of campaign stops - just not in Iowa or NH. He's the real thing and I will be voting for him in Oregon's Primary.
7
@Independent Observer I don't think
You can't use this year's dysfunctional Democrat field to forecast future events. It's why someone like Bloomberg decided to jump in at the last minute, and why even Hillary was pondering coming back in. Once Trump is reelected, we will see a civil war in the Democratic party, which will determine the direction the party will go in. Will the party go back to the middle or will it slide to the left into socialism.
2
Good luck to all the candidates.
Do us proud Iowa.
22
@Dobbys sock
Well, this comment hasn't aged as well as I hoped.
C'mon Iowa, do better.
1