I'm for Elizabeth, Bernie or Kamala, but I would rather have Amy than either Joe or Pete

[Tom Rinaldo]

And it should go without saying that I would enthusiastically support any of them against Trump.

Biden's campaign has quite simply underwhelmed me, and I've approached this entire primary contest with a much more detached attitude than I have had in prior presidential campaign cycles. Which means I have not been emotionally rooting against anyone, which is the corollary of not strongly for anyone either. This has been a refreshing change for me in a way, remaining in a more passive mode. I have watched to see how our various candidates swayed the public, rather than doing my small bit attempting to sway anyone toward any of our candidates myself.

So, I was and remain open to Biden, but he has impressed me less this time around than I was expecting him too. I expected Harris to be doing better than she has so far also. At this point her winning the nomination is increasingly seeming unlikely. In pundit speak I reside in the progressive lane when it comes to my natural inclinations. IMO only Bernie and Elizabeth remain viable from that so called lane, though it is remotely possible that Steyer can "buy his way" into it if that is where he chooses to position himself ideologically AND he has a few viral moments in the next couple of debates.

The so called more "moderate lane" is a little more complex. For one thing there is the late entry of Patrick and the possible late entry of Bloomberg to contend with, replete with unknown repercussions. It seems that Buttigieg has chosen to stake out turf in the "moderate lane", competing with Biden there. So has Booker and Klobuchar. Of those Mayor Pete clearly has momentum and money behind him. Cory has carved out a "moderate" niche for himself in the second tier, but he hasn't surged. Amy Klobuchar however has begun to show some signs of moving up, and there still is time for her to build upon her recent momentum.

I'll be blunt. I think it would be risky if Democrats nominated Buttigieg this time around, though he might be a good VP addition. There is very little enthusiasm for him among African American voters, and this race has been going on long enough now for that to register as a real problem for him. I have no doubt that the vast majority of African Americans would vote for Buttigieg in the General Election, but enthusiasm (or the relative lack of it) is a very real factor in political success. Hillary Clinton swept up the black vote in Democratic primaries in 2016, but the actual African American voting rate dropped in 2016, which was one of the contributing factors to Clinton not becoming president. And yes there is the matter of vestiges of homophobia remaining in the American public as a whole, which is by no means restricted to minority communities. But there is also Mayor Pete's relative lack of administrative and policy experience above the level of a medium sized municipality. Those motivated to disparage Pete Buttigieg because they harbor homophobia in themselves can use Buttigieg's relative inexperience as convenient cover for attacks on his potential leadership.

I see in Amy Klobuchar a fresh yet experienced face of moderately progressive Democratic leadership. I think she would contrast well against Trump as our nominee, better in some crucial ways than would Joe Biden. I'm keeping a close eye on her as well as on my preferred candidates, and on Daval Patrick also.

[Cha]

1. That's ok.. I'd rather have Khizr Khan's Endorsement for Joe Biden..

Biden Wins Endorsement of Gold Star Family

"I'm supporting Joe Biden for President because of the America he stands for and the one he will fight for — the country that my son, Humayun Khan, believed in and fought for so bravely," said Khan, referencing his son, a Muslim American soldier killed while serving in Iraq in 2004.

He continued, "Vice President Biden has always put the country above himself. From the days after he was first elected Senator to his time serving alongside President Obama, Vice President Biden has never wavered in his commitment to our country. President Donald Trump, on the other hand, has consistently chosen self over country, seeking the aid of totalitarian governments to sway elections and undermine our rule of law to serve his self-interest."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287351155

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. That's OK. It's a great endorsement.

And I would too would be happy with Biden presidency. Khan is a real asset to Biden, and if Biden falls short I hope and expect that he will be a real asset to whoever does win the nomination.

[Eliot Rosewater]

4. I sure hope as FUCK that when someone says they "remain open" to a given candidate

they mean in the PRIMARY only and that NO MATTER who the candidate is they are voting BLUE.

But I will not make that assumption around here anymore, if you know what I mean!

[Gothmog]

5. Khizr Khan addresses Sunday school students at the Islamic Society of New Hampshire

Link to tweet

[judeling]

3. From the star Warren Klobuchar and Booker

Were my look at's. I settled on Klobuchar because she is both the best inside game player we have and the one to put the Senate most in play. So make the most progress.

But if I saw the recession coming sooner and deeper then I expect I'd switch to Warren. Because in the wake of that we could make dramatic progress.

[Hortensis]

6. Well, let's see. Kam, Joe, Warren, or Pete? Or Sanders?

I think that's a far more realistic either-or.

Some have the idea that Warren should be grouped with Sanders, or at least away from the others. But look beyond the campaign postures and phony media stylings to their histories and actions.

For just one: Warren's a good Democrat on a firm leadership track, chosen by Democratic leaders for possible top leadership; think more like Amy, another strong doer.

For just another clue, VP Biden wanted Warren very strongly for his running mate if he ran in 2016, and she met with him to discuss it and left the door open...

Neither of them would even endorse Sanders from a distance, and everyone by now should have a very good idea why.

[phleshdef]

7. Harris winning the nomination is unlikely? Ya think?

She dropped out over a week ago.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. When I wrote this on November 19th unlikely was a good way of describing her chances

Now I would say that would be overly optimistic, ya think?

[LAS14]

9. My thoughts exactly except for the Bernie part. Too grumpy to be my choice for president. nt

[floppyboo]

10. Bernie has the highest favorables of all candidates!

I'm sorry you find him 'grumpy'. I suppose that's one way to choose a president. However, you've come to the right place if you are looking to commiserate!

I find it quite amazing how Bernie is doing so exceptionally without any enthusiasm from the MSM. If they started showing his caring, humorous side more often, rather than having pundits talking about how he makes their skin crawl, we might see even greater support. There are exceptions though. I credit Chris Cuomo, Katy Tur and Chris (boyface-can't remember).

Bernie supporters, afaik, don't watch cable news much, and aren't likely to be swayed by either dismissivness or black-outs.

It is clear MSM don't want a Bernie victory (or their bosses don't) and have learnt their lesson from the disastrous 24/7 over-coverage of Trump.

I'm anticipating with great curiosity how they will cover his early state delegate wins.

[LAS14]

12. I've watched him through many, many debates. I get my impressions...

... from there, not the MSM reports. I'm very impressed with his ideas and his passion, and I've been glad for his presence since he first got national recognition. But I want more wisdom and generosity on the part of a president. Needless to say, of course, I would be wildly enthusiastic for him to replace Trump if it came to that.

[MineralMan]

11. I know Amy Klobuchar. She's one of my Senators.

She'd make a good President, but it's extremely unlikely that she will rise to the top for 2020. Most folks in states other than Minnesota don't know her very well. She's a bipartisan Senator, elected by people from both parties. She supports progressive legislation often, but has also supported other things that are likely to be poorly received by many progressive Democrats.

I'm not going to list any of them, because I don't think she will come close to being our nominee, and I can see no reason to point out areas where many would disagree with her. She has served Minnesota very well as a Senator, and I hope she continues in that position for as long as she wants to.

Because she is well down in the polling, she has not received the close attention she would if she were polling better. If she did get that kind of attention, you'd be seeing many here on DU decrying some of her positions as a Senator. I guarantee it.

I think she'd be a good President, if not a great one. She'd be able to get things done, as she has in the past, by enlisting support from both sides of the aisle. That skill, however, would not get her much reward here on DU, I think.