Kamala Harris Surges in 3 Polls After Strong Debate Performance

[Voltaire2]

After a strong performance in her first Democratic presidential debate, Senator Kamala Harris of California saw a significant increase in support in three polls released this week, as she and the rest of the Democratic primary field cut into the lead that former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has enjoyed since entering the 2020 race.

The three polls of likely Democratic voters — two were national surveys, and one polled Iowa caucusgoers — all showed Ms. Harris leaping into second place in the days after last week’s debates. They also showed a dip in support for Mr. Biden, though more than one in five respondents still said he was their first choice to become the Democratic presidential nominee.

Taken together, the polls also continued a broader trend in which Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has gained ground as Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has fallen back. Ms. Warren remained solidly in the top tier, finishing third in all three polls; Mr. Sanders, who led several polls before Mr. Biden entered the race, finished fourth in each of them. The differences between the two were within the margins of error and thus statistically insignificant.

All three polls were conducted by phone within four days of the first round of Democratic debates last week. While Ms. Harris appeared to benefit the most from her performance, gains in polling for particular candidates immediately after debates are often temporary.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/us/politics/kamala-harris-polls.html

[bucolic_frolic]

1. I think we need a great campaigner, in the Obama model

I'm still not sure who that is. You won't beat Trump being only professorial, or only with logic, or only on issues (there are too many to focus on). You need emotion. You need blowback. You need to bludgeon and confront while showing an ample supply of disgust and even at times anger. This is really a demonstration of strength that will help defend our own candidate. If you let Republican attacks and twisted issues back you into a corner, you are in deep trouble.

Just a few thoughts to keep in mind.

[UniteFightBack]

3. Agreed. I'm thinking the best person to do that may be Booker but don't see him winning nationally.

Ran out of room for no text !

[FailureToCommunicate]

5. I like Warren, and she's a great Senator for us. But, as you state, we can't

Last edited Wed Jul 3, 2019, 03:48 PM - Edit history (1)

beat Trump with (just) professorial demeanor, or only logic, or only on the issues. Warren has all those qualities in spades.

So that's where I still am supporting Harris, and a bit reluctantly, Biden. I think a Biden/Harris ticket would absolutely win, uniting the masses of reluctant voters, with the very passionate progressive voters, to possibly even coat-tail a triumph in the Senate.

But I'll vote, as should we all, for whoever is the eventual ticket. Just have to hope and pray that they are great campaigners...and that Russian and Republican shenanigans don't screw us again.

[bucolic_frolic]

10. How do we grab midwestern demographics?

Klobuchar. Sherrod Brown. Neither likely for a variety of reasons. Harris brings nothing incremental in the Electoral College, geographically speaking. California will go Democratic. Biden is from a small state, same reasoning.

Then again, HRC played geographics very well with Tim Kaine, and look what happened.

[marylandblue]

13. Is geography really that important? Trump's a New Yorker and nobody cared.

[marylandblue]

14. I think Warren is the closest we have to Obama.

She is travelling everywhere and her crowds are growing. Some people think she is not charismatic, but I think she is. Not in the flashy political sense, but her passion and commitment shine through every word and that draws people in.

Also Buttigieg is Obama-like, but I think bad luck has sunk his campaign.

[LeftTurn3623]

2. After the first debate

I'm starting to think Kamala might be the best person to take on Trump. She would destroy him in a debate.


I still like Warrens ideas better but against Trump it will be more than message.

[chimpymustgo]

4. Love to see you keeping an open mind. Kamala WOULD DESTROY tRUMP in a debate.

I like Warren a like, but as you have stated, Kamala might be best to take on tRUMP.

[NurseJackie]

6. She'd also do a great job debating Pence.

I think that's probably what's going to happen.

[MoonRiver]

7. Mayor Pete is the one I'd love to see debate homophobe Pence!

[chimpymustgo]

8. I think you're on to something! Kamala/Pete!!

I'm liking that!

[NurseJackie]

11. That certainly would be entertaining.

He's worse than a mere homophobe... it wouldn't take much to unnerve him.

[ucrdem]

9. Good point!

Here's the article takeaway: "gains in polling for particular candidates immediately after debates are often temporary."

[treestar]

12. Hillary did that

[marylandblue]

16. I think the opposite, message is more important than attacking.

Authoritarian populists like Rep love negative campaigns. That's because they usually have high negatives to start. If both campaigns sling mud, both candidates get covered in mud and voters say they are both equally bad, so they feel justified to vote for the obvious asshole because he is a better asshole. This happened to Clinton. People who hated both candidates hated her more and voted for Trump.

If the campaign is about a message, then Trump can be seen for the empty suit he is. We have ideas that will make things better, they only insults and platitudes.

[DesertRat]

15. k&r