Klobuchar spoke to me

[KentuckyWoman]

First time any of them really got to me enough to make "wow " out loud.

I like them all for various reasons. Today she hopped into my top 3.

Even gave her money tonight. Which says a lot

[blm]

1. She moved into my top two last debate.

[scheming daemons]

2. I agree... this was the first real "wow" moment of the primary season by any candidate

"I know you."

That was excellent.

[KentuckyWoman]

6. It was. And clearly from the heart.

She is both polished and genuine.

I like when they tried to slam Bernie's ability to collaborate and tried to get her to pile on she gave a handful of examples on how that is not true.

The wow moment was I know you.

[lunasun]

9. Yes it wasn't just her at the end it was the whole debate for her. How she turned around that

pile on question not only disclaiming it but it was done in a natural way with examples not a rehearsed simplified statement on the subject
And she had questions we all ask about trump like Who does that ?

[DesertRat]

7. I think that her closing really spoke to people

"I know you. I will fight for you"

Link to tweet

[caraher]

13. Yes, that was effective

Amy had a good night

[essme]

3. I still want Warren to win, and think Yang sees the future better

but Klobuchar was very good and did a great job of connecting with the audience. You can't save $450,000,000 in a coffee can was a great line.

[KentuckyWoman]

8. Yang does seem to understand where jobs are headed

And considering 2/3 of Americans did not or will not go to college, and are too busy with day to day to chase "wealth" ... not sure I am on board with all his ideas but you are right, I think he does see the bigger picture.

[UniteFightBack]

4. She has been strong in every debate. How is she doing in head to head match up with dump

in the swing states....does anybody know?

[squirecam]

11. The only one consistently winning swing states

Vs Trump is Biden. Everyone else is always close against him, or even losing.

[UniteFightBack]

12. That's why I don't understand why we are all not going with Biden then? Whatever we'll have to

widen the gap if it's someone else besides Biden....we'll do it!

[caraher]

14. I don't put a ton of faith in polls this far out

I'd be right with you if I believed February polls really tell the story of November 3 (the day of the only poll that matters). Until we can see the future I prefer the primary to be about promoting the candidates we think would be best in the presidency, with the understanding that we all work our asses off to make it happen once the primaries are done.

[UniteFightBack]

15. But it's about beating dump..and nothing else. Oh well. nt

[caraher]

17. Let me put it another way...

If I told you I'd consulted numerous tarot card readers, had a shaman read chicken entrails, consulted my astrologer, and they all confirmed that Tulsi Gabbard would beat Trump, would you throw your support to her and urge everyone to do the same?

"Well, that's not at all the same - none of those things has any predictive value" then I would agree. I would add that the polling isn't a lot better (not enough to make the decisive factor in whose candidacy I advocate...). The final polls didn't get Iowa right, for just the most recent instance. Polling had Hillary winning in 2016 right up until she didn't. Polls can shift quite a bit.

[UniteFightBack]

18. Not a good comparison...polls and tarot cards -- polls are a guideline not a bible. I disagree that

the polling was incorrect in 2016. In all the swing states there was always a large 'undecided' portion and I said who the hell are those people going to break for?
Whoever they broke for won. So I believe the polls were wrong in 2016 is a myth that is constantly perpetuated.

[caraher]

21. Guideline, not a bible

True - which is why I don't look at it as "polling right now shows Candidate X does best in these states, therefore we should all fall in line behind Candidate X." Our actions, the candidates actions, news developments - all sorts of influences will change polling and ultimately affect the final vote. There's just not enough signal in polling during primaries to serve as a reliable guideline, because it is overwhelmed by the unpredictable.

Go back to February 2016... who had Hillary losing Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin to Trump? Nobody. So why should I decide whom to back in February 2020 based on what polling says about any given candidate vs. Trump today (whether nationally or in the states that proved decisive last time)?

What we know is that all the dirty tricks we saw last time will return in some form or other, and how we deal with them will determine the outcome. We have lots of great options for the nomination, what's going to matter in the end is probably less what name winds up atop the ticket than how that person, and their supporters, fight through the general election season. All will be subject to election interference solicited and encouraged by Trump and an endless barrage of lies relayed by media bowing to baseless claims of liberal bias. We will all necessarily have different ideas regarding who will best inspire voters, who will stand up to the rigors of constant attack, and who will make the best president, but I do think those are the right criteria to be employing in the primary season, and polling doesn't tell me much about any of that.

[SunSeeker]

5. Amy had a great night. nt

[tiredtoo]

10. Yep

She has always been in my top 3. Could not understand why she wasn't getting any traction.

[BusyBeingBest]

19. She was kneecapped at her campaign launch by stories of

making young staffers feel sad and not validated.

[oasis]

16. Amy K Won the Day.

[Buckeyeblue]

20. Amy looked presidential last night

Her answers were concise and specific. Her personality really came through. And her I know you speech at the end was Clintonesque.

I think Trump would have a big problem dealing with her.

Biden did not look good and seemed to shout most of his answers.