Assuming you will vote for the nominee in the General either way would you rather

[jezebel321]

27 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Go with Biden if he is seen as the safe choice to beat Trump?
	13 (48%)
	Go with your preferred other candidate in the primary and take a chance?
	14 (52%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[jezebel321]

1. I am wondering how much of Biden's support is fully dependent on the running assumption he

can beat Trump?

[leftofcool]

2. A lot

[jezebel321]

3. I'm thinking I agree. I wonder if others start polling well against Trump or Biden slips against

Trump if his support will crumble? From reading around his support more seems to be "he can beat Trump" than actual support FOR Biden?

[BannonsLiver]

14. Well, that is what it is all about.

I don’t see it as much of a negative if people think he can beat Donnie.

[JustAnotherGen]

29. Not mine

My assumption is that like Pete, Kamala, Julian and Andy - he's the Anti-MAGA.

BTW - Pete has received the highest dollar amount in donations from me at this time.

I'm in NJ so I hope when next June comes around - my choices include at least one of these five.

[hlthe2b]

4. This is the way I am LEANING.... but I've not made a final decision

First and foremost we HAVE to get rid of Trump--all else, ALL ELSE is secondary.

Right now, I am of a mind that Biden is best situated to do that. Obviously, that might change, but I can see him bringing back the atypical Trump voter that normally voted independent or conservative Dem, especially in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin. I think POC will support him, though clearly, he will be competing with Kamala Harris and Corey Booker (and a few others) for that vote, especially among African Americans. So, yeah, I think Biden will get strong support or be able to develop that across-the-board support.

But, I see him serving only one term. If he chooses someone for VP like Kamala Harris or Amy Klobuchar or conceivably Warren (or a number of the others, though I favor a woman, all things being equal--leaning Kamala) then they are given the opportunity to propel themselves as the front-runner in 2024 with both name recognition and demonstrated readiness. Meanwhile, Biden will be able to do a tremendous amount in restoring our reputation and alliances worldwide because he knows these leaders already and has their trust. Likewise, he knows where the damage has been wrought within the Federal agencies and can expedite reversing the damage. That experience means he can focus on getting us back on track while not likely to pose an obstacle to the more progressive Congressional agenda. Seems like a win-win-win.

[jezebel321]

6. I keep seeing this thought about only serving one term. But has he said that?

What if he doesn't agree to that? Do you think an over 80 year old running for reelection in 2024 puts the Dems in a horrible position against whomever the Republicans would run?

[hlthe2b]

7. Strong instinct. I TRULY believe Biden wants to set the country back on course...

and that is what motivates him. I think he will mentor his VP to carry on the job and feel good about enabling them to do so.

[jezebel321]

8. Is it ok to say I would feel so much better if he would say it? Part of my reluctance to back him

is that.

[hlthe2b]

13. I don't think we should handicap him going into a General election (assuming he does win nomination)

by insisting he declare that four years in advance. I truly believe the RW would use it against him and all Democrats in about the ugliest ageism argument we've ever seen-- to make him seem WEAK.

[MoonRiver]

43. I've also been very concerned about using that argument.

Chump is a few years older than Biden, and he would go crazy using the sleepy Biden meme. He would constantly urge Biden to go back to his rocking chair and take a nap. If Biden wins the primary he should proceed in the General with his usual gusto, and not mention age. Others will bring it up of course and he can tell them how healthy and strong he still is.

[GReedDiamond]

50. Not to nitpcik, but Biden was born in 1942, while the orange moron was...

...born in 1946.

[Raven123]

33. He said that yesterday and that is a negative dor me

I am one of those who was disappointed in the Obama/Biden 8 years. Though I disagree with everything I can think of about DT, he continuously, publicly advocates for his policies and positions. IMO Obama and Biden were inadequate advocates. Did not keep their voters engaged.

Going back to Obama time is exactly what Trump would love to run against and what I do not want. Do Not Go Back. Go Forward.

If Biden is the nominee, I will vote for him, but I hope for someone else.

[hlthe2b]

35. Just a reminder of the priorities

Trump: Special Counsel Probe Was ‘An Attempted Overthrow’ Of The Government
The president said Robert Mueller’s investigation was like something that would happen in a “third world country.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-mueller-coup-sean-hannity_n_5cc268e8e4b081706966ed44

He desperately wants to foment violence.

[Raven123]

37. A country that was on the right course before Trump would not have elected Trump

[hlthe2b]

44. That you would even make the comparison makes me wonder why you are here.

I am appalled.

[AlexSFCA]

54. you weren't satified with how Obama/Biden restored economy?

or how ACA became law? or nominating Sotamayor and Kagan to SC? Or you weren’t satisfied with Congress rather that actually passes laws?
We were on the right path until gop took over senate.

[Demsrule86]

20. He should never say that. A lame duck presidency is a bad idea.

And incumbents win reelection almost always.
.

[Celerity]

25. 'And incumbents win reelection almost always.'

Only recently.

It was spotty before that, going way back to right after Andrew Jackson, only Lincoln (killed right after he won-re-election ), Grant, William McKinley (killed right after he won 2nd term ), Teddy Roosevelt (but lost in 1912 when he tried to re-gain the POTUS after a 4 year absence), and Wilson won re-election. Coolidge chose not to run as an elected incumbent.

Post FDR fails or non-runs:

Truman, chose not to run in 1952 (he won, barely, in 1948, but he was not an elected incumbent then)

Kennedy (never got a chance to run as incumbent )

LBJ, chose not to run as an elected incumbent in 1968

Ford, lost

Carter, lost

Bush Sr, lost



Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama started paradigm change of 3 straight ones who completed 8 straight years.

hopefully we break that new string in 2020

[Demsrule86]

39. Recently except for two ...most incumbents win another term.

Consider from FDR on...only two that didn't win a second term.

[Celerity]

42. 'FDR on...only two that didn't win a second term.'

I already showed this is not true.



post-FDR, 6 POTUS's did not win 2 elected terms (whether by choice or by being defeated)

JFK would have, I am sure, but was killed before he could run again

[drray23]

34. It would be a big mistake tactically to say so

Even if he decides to only do one term, he should not announce it now. This would give trump a powerful argument why he should not be elected.
Some voters, especially independents wont like that either. When you vote for a candidate you want somebody who is all in.

[totodeinhere]

5. We need a healthy competitive primary campaign, and then let the primary voters and caucus goers

decide. I do not believe that corinating anyone, Biden or anyone else at this point is a wise thing to do. Lets let this play out and see what happens. And I'm still not convinced that Hillary might not reverse herself and get in the race if the field looks to be fragmented and divided a few months from now. A late Hillary entrance into the race to "save" the party is a possibility.

[LongtimeAZDem]

9. "Go with Biden because he is my preferred candidate AND he's the best choice to beat Trump"

[jezebel321]

10. lol, I should have put a 3rd choice up. Wasnt meaning to imply anything by it. nt

[LongtimeAZDem]

11. NP; I got it :)

[Hortensis]

12. All these health epidemics, lung, kidneys, heart, childhood

asthma are dragging us down. Yes, they're due to humanity-level lifestyle changes, and we'd beat them in time, but just think of the costs until then.

When I do, I'm much more inclined to flip a coin with their lives. Safe, they live. Lose, health-cleansing of our population, leaving it leaner and meaner, literally in both senses. Looked at right, they could both be considered win-win options.

And when I add in the cost of providing livings for all the workers the 0.01% don't need any more! Should that be a problem for those of us retired on our own savings? I. Don't. Think. So. As long as we don't have to see them when we go out.

As for voting citizenship, 40% of Americans don't bother anyway, and probably another third insist it's a waste of time. So they wouldn't miss it. Briefly anyway, and then it'd be in their interests to shut their mouths and get over it.

I think I vote for NOT safe. (Did I mention we're both white and straight?) We've got ours. As long as our healths held up and we took care not to cross the authorities. I spend too much time on these forums anyway.

[Demsrule86]

21. Well not safe could elect Trump again. I can't imagine the horrors that await if this happens.

[Hortensis]

23. Yes. The horrors will include SCOTUS for ANY Republican

president, not just trump. District courts, appellate courts, state courts. The Republican leadership and the people they serve intend to bypass and cripple the sovereignty of the electorate by getting, and keeping, control of the presidency, legislatures, and courts.

[pnwmom]

15. How about: wait till there has been a debate or two and see how the candidates handle them? n/t

[Andy823]

16. A much better idea

It's a long time till the elections in 2020, and we "NEED" to hear from all our candidates to see who "really" has the best chance to take trump down. "Anointing" the "best choice" this early in the game doesn't even make sense. I agree with you, get a few debates out of the way and see who "really" connects with the people. I have a felling that the "leader" spot will change numerous times before the first primary.

[femmedem]

31. I agree! We have such great candidates, some of whom are still barely known by the electorate.

I have Buttigieg listed as my preferred candidate, but I could easily see myself voting in the primary for Warren, Harris or Biden. I'm probably leaning Warren this week after seeing how well she connected with the audience in the town halls. (I've always loved her for her policies, but worried she'd be unelectable after the press relentlessly pushed the Cherokee story at the expense of covering her platform.) How well could she do if more people see her themselves, rather than reading about her? How many people could be won over by Harris's ideas and charisma?

It could well be that Biden would be our most electable, but if that becomes the conventional wisdom this early, it is likely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy before most of our candidates have had a chance to connect with the voters.

[Andy823]

45. Yes a lot can change

I too will vote for the best one to beat trump, whoever that may be. Right now I like Harris, and Inslee. The main thing will be who can take trump on, and win.

[MarcA]

17. If Repub Senate Allows drumph to be Convicted

after Dem House Impeaches him, Who would the Repubs run in 2020?

[Demsrule86]

40. Pence

[backtoblue]

18. I don't feel like I'm taking a "chance" with my primary vote

We definitely want to beat Drumpf. Whoever the nominee is we'll all need to get behind 100%.

Probably the bottom line at this point.

[hedda_foil]

57. I'm with you, Blue! If Joe is nominated I'll vote for him but I don't think he's a sure thing.

C'mon Bidenites, pile on!

[pansypoo53219]

19. WI too late to matter. but i would vote for the leader. IF i think they will win.

[Maru Kitteh]

22. Would I rather watch democracy soaked in petrol and kicked down a hill? For my PERSONAL vanity?

Oh fuck no.

[Kentonio]

24. Not voting in the poll because the wording is presumptuous.

One of the worries I have about Joe Biden for the general is that he is absolutely not a 'safe choice'. He has tons of baggage (although the same can be said about Sanders) however that baggage if twisted by the GOP could cut into our base. It's not impossible to see the pukes hammering him on Anita Hill to try and reduce his support in the black communities and they'll certainly hit him via proxies with his support of the credit card companies and the bankrupcy stuff. At a time when the party has been drifting left over the last four years, that stuff being aired in public again could have a serious effect on our turnout in the general.

All our candidates are likely to face that kind of ratfucking though, but with Joe he's also VERY susceptible to unprovoked gaffes. In the past we could just laugh that off most of the time, but if he drops a big one just before the general then that could cost us the White House.

He's a strong candidate and if he's the next president then I'll be more than satisfied with that, but let's not pretend he's a safe choice. His record shows that isn't the case.

[Celerity]

26. slanted wording, so a bogus poll, 'safe choice' v. 'take a chance', that would earn an 'F' from 538

[TreasonousBastard]

27. Too many things can happen by out primary-- like other primaries...

and we don't know yet if Biden is the one to beat Trump.

And, while beating Trump is important, we do have to put some thought into who the best president would be.

[Demit]

28. Seeing Biden as the safe choice is also taking a chance.

[AlexSFCA]

30. a vote for BS is a vote for trump

we have two things to do, block BS and elect the candidate most likely to beat trump. It was Hillary in 2016 (BS would have given trump colossal landslide).

[totodeinhere]

48. I don't know why you believe that. Do you have polling data to that effect?

Or do you have some other rationale? Myself, I think that Bernie would have beaten Trump in 2016 and he will beat him in 2020.

[wasupaloopa]

52. I think Bernie people don't realize that he is not popular

with the majority of voters. That goes for all the past Hillary supporters and many others.

Both Bernie ad his supporters seem to be acting like the last two years didn’t happen. Bernie hasn’t changed one word of his stump speech. Also there are younger candidates who have the same stances.

[MFM008]

32. I believe if Joe

Is the nominee he will put Warren
Or Harris on the ticket.
But we will see many dems in his cabinet
Perhaps Jay Inslee at Interior ..
Mayor Pete at the supreme court..
Something for an Obama?
Sanity will return to government.

[drray23]

36. Indeed. I think Harris would be more likely than warren as vp

First, she can reach a part of the electorate that is critical, i.e the african american vote, second she is younger and would be ideally situated as a vp to gain plenty of experience and visibility for another run and win.

[Celerity]

38. Buttigieg doesnt have a law degree, I keep seeing all these posts from various people saying he

should be the AG or go onto the SCOTUS, but unless he takes the time to get his Juris Doctor and presumable actually practices some law, he is not really eligible for either.

[MFM008]

46. Just an example

He should do something ...
Ambassador to Russia?

[Celerity]

47. lolol, Putie would have a FIT!!!!

[totodeinhere]

49. Actually the Constitution does not require that a SCOTUS justice have a law degree.

The last SCOTUS justice without a law degree was Stanley Reed, who served on the Court from 1938 to 1957. You really need to bone up on your civics.

[Celerity]

53. I knew that, but in today's environment , he will not be judged as eligible from a

political perspective, thus my use of the word 'really'. You need to bone up on how to be less condescending.

[Amimnoch]

41. oh, that's a hard one.

Right now, I'm in it for Beto primarily for his being able to put Texas in play.

As we get closer to the primaries, and in particular as we get closer to when the primary in my state happens, I will be making a switch to the ones that polls best against Cheetolini in the battleground states and looking closely at how Beto polls against him in Texas.

I will ultimately support whichever candidate that has the best chance of first removing Bernie from the race, then removing Cheeto from office.

I don't want BS, and I want Cheetolini out of office.

[wasupaloopa]

51. Biden will not be the nominee. I think it is good that

he is running as a counterweight to the socialists.

I think Kamala Harris will be out in front after Super Tuesday.

She is female, minority, experienced, qualified and not identified with right left or center.

She doesn’t have anything to prove anything like some older white guys do. She has built on bonifidies.

[Skittles]

55. what chance would I be taking?

I will vote in the Primary for who I think would be the better president but in the end, I would vote for a ham sandwich over the piece of fascist shit currently serving as "president"

on edit: I should add that I live in a state where my preference in the Primary means nothing - it's usually already decided before I can even vote

[NastyRiffraff]

56. That's a false choice

One is "safe" and another is "taking a chance"? We found out in 2016 that NOTHING is safe when the deck is stacked. Republicans are planning voter suppression again, and they intend to do nothing to stop Russian/Chinese/Saudi election meddling.

Whoever ends up as the nominee, we need to flood the polls. Which means, of course, work; a LOT of hard, slogging, boring work; getting out the vote, educating voters, people who've never voted, people who have soured on voting--in other words, everyone. This is an emergency. I don't see Joe Biden or anyone else as a "safe" choice, although I agree that some candidates are more likely than others to defeat Trump.

[shanny]

58. Lotta assumptions in there.

We all assumed Hillary would win.