BTRTN 2020 Vision: Are We Headed Toward a Biden-Warren Showdown?

[reggieandlee]

Born To Run the Numbers provides its monthly snapshot of the state of the Democratic campaign:

http://www.borntorunthenumbers.com/2019/08/btrtn-2020-vision-are-we-headed-toward.html

Excerpts: "The main headlines from the 2020 presidential campaign in the last month, since mid-July, are as follows: Joe Biden remains at the head of the field, nationally and in each of the four 'early' states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina), and his support levels have stabilized. Elizabeth Warren continued her upward progress and pulled even with Bernie Sanders, while the momentum of Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg stalled. None of the remaining candidates surged into the 'top tier...'
"This race seems poised to follow a different pattern than either 2012 with its flavors or 2016 with Trump dominating. We could instead be very well be headed – ultimately -- for a one-on-one showdown between Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, a classic confrontation between the centrist and progressive wings of the party, more like Hillary versus Bernie in 2016. Biden seems to have solid support in the centrist wing of the party and there is no clear centrist alternative. While hardly an ideal candidate, Biden has a core 30% support level that has survived his slow-footedness during the debates and gaffes on the campaign trial. There is much to like about Biden: his centrist positioning; his deep experience; his authenticity and likeability; and his standing versus Trump, whom he routinely trounces in head-to-head polls... Warren seeming to be cruising by Sanders in the battle for the progressive wing in the party. No one else will emerge. Both Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg, the other two top tier contenders, are showing signs of being a bit past their peak..."
"There are four, and only four, potential candidates would could enter the race as late as December and immediately become a factor. Four candidates with the visibility and stature to offer a different, credible option. Can you name them? Read on..."

[pangaia]

1. Oprah Winfree? Give me a break...

I would never wish the horror of being president on Michelle Obama and her family..

[highplainsdem]

2. The four possible future candidates: HRC, Michelle Obama, Oprah, Bloomberg.

HRC would not run again.

And Michelle has made it clear she won't run.

Oprah has waffled a bit but generally sounds as if she would not run.

And Bloomberg would never, ever have a chance at the Democratic nomination, no matter how much he spent.


Of those four, Michellle would probably do best.

But SurveyUSA has already polled on how well both Michelle and Oprah would do against Trump while doing their regular polliing for their national poll and state polls of California and North Carolina.

Michelle did better than Oprah. Both would beat Trump.

But Biden does as well as Michelle Obama against Trump.


https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287232336

[brush]

3. Good analysis but it seems to discount Sanders too much. I'm not against either Biden or Warren...

and I hope for the sake of the party we don't have a repeat of the 2016 divisiveness between Warren and Biden, not to mention Sanders who could take his ball (supporters) and go home for being left out.

As far as the other four who could enter the race late, Hillary and Michelle are not riding in on a white horse to rescue us. As for the other two, both billionaires, I think Bloomberg is more likely to try than Oprah. He could be formidable if he plays up his history of pushing for gun legislation.

[bigbrother05]

4. Biden-Warren is a more centered contest than Clinton-Sanders was

Joe and Elizabeth are both more traditional choices for Dems. He's an old line NE/Mid Atlantic/Labor Dem and she's a fiscal progressive. Neither should be scary to the broad base of the party or center-left independents.

[Go Vols]

9. A tradition since '85

After the landslide electoral defeats to the Democratic Party led by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, a group of prominent Democrats began to believe their party was out of touch and in need of a radical shift in economic policy and ideas of governance.[5][6] The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was founded in 1985 by Al From and a group of like-minded politicians and strategists.[7] They advocated a political "Third Way" as an antidote to the electoral successes of Reaganism.[5][6]

The landslide 1984 Presidential election defeat spurred centrist Democrats to action, and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was formed. The DLC, an unofficial party organization, played a critical role in moving the Democratic Party's policies to the center of the American political spectrum. Prominent Democratic politicians such as: Senators Al Gore and Joe Biden (both future Vice Presidents) participated in DLC affairs prior to their candidacy for the 1988 Democratic Party nomination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats

I preferred the old Democrats,and being left of center:
From an old Democrat perspective, new Democrats persistently seek to deal with “effects”, and refuse to deal with “causes”. In other words, new Democrat policy solutions are simply not proportionate to the scale of the problem facing America’s working families.

That inevitably leads back to Faux’s focus on politics, money, and power. Dealing with causes challenges the political and economic power structure. However, power pays the bills, and new Democrats want the money that the powerful currently give them. Ergo, new Democrats refuse to challenge the power structure, and hence their band-aid approach to working family economic woes.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/03/old-democrats-vs-new-democrats/

[bigbrother05]

10. Thanks, you dug deeper to flesh out my point

My view is that a Biden - Warren faceoff will be much less divisive for the Dems than we saw in 2016.

There are clear distinctions between them without being so far apart as to leave lingering resentment from their backers.

[evertonfc]

5. probably

I really wish we had a generational shift with our canidate. Obama, Clinton, Carter, Kennedy, Johnson were all under 55. Did I leave anyone out? Presidential races are personality contests to a point. I yearn to turn the page with a new generation. Now, ill gladly support anyone versus Trump but just a preference

[tgards79]

7. The problem is...

None of the current batch meet their times like the list you cited...and are far short on the talent spectrum, too.

[evertonfc]

8. hard to say.

I don't know if that's necessarily true. You have some highly educated, very successful individuals on the list that have succeeded in both private and public sectors. Several have won elections and a couple in red states. To be fair, several provably more so than our front runners. I'm just stating what me and alot of folks in my social circles are hoping for. We will support the nominee.

[peggysue2]

6. I would not be surprised with

a head-to-head match, Biden vs Warren, as we head into the end of this year.

After which the games truly begin, aka voting in the early states and Super Tuesday. By then, I fully expect we'll know (or have a pretty solid idea) who the eventual 2020 nominee will be. And then . . .

The real work begins to ensure that Trump is kicked to the curb.